Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

National Opera Studio

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education regarding the funding of those students accepted for training at the National Opera Studio. [14177]

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I have had no such discussions.

Mr. Gunnell: Is it not time that the Secretary of State got together with his right hon. Friend to discuss education funding for opera, dance and a number of other art forms? Does not he recognise that the high reputation that has been built up by the National Opera Studio is based upon the performance of those who have passed through it? It takes just 12 students a year, and many of those graduates are earning big reputations for Britain as well as considerable sums of money abroad. Surely those 12 selected students should be funded. Can the right hon. Gentleman provide the means to ensure that those 12 top students in that art form get the education and training that they deserve?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to the work of the National Opera Studio, which is an important, unique resource. That is why 40 per cent. of its bills are met by the Arts Council. As I have said, I have not met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to talk specifically about the funding of students from the National Opera Studio, but we are working closely to deal with the wider issue of funding for dance and drama students.

Public Libraries

Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Library Association to discuss the funding of public libraries. [14178]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My right hon. Friend met members of the Library Association on 3 October last year. Discussions were wide ranging, around an agenda of topics provided by the Library Association. I met members of the association on 10 October, at the launch of London Libraries Week.

Mr. Hoon: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the Minister happen to know when the Secretary of State last

borrowed a book from a public library and its title? Is he not ashamed that the Government's policy has resulted in a £350,000 cut in this year's grants to libraries in Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Sproat: I do not know when my right hon. Friend last borrowed a book, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I borrowed a book last Friday entitled "Nelson", by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
Local authorities have been subject to a tight settlement, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the past 10 years the amount of money spent on public libraries has gone up by 9.3 per cent. Today, we have more libraries, more books borrowed and more books in our libraries than we had five years ago.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister is too complacent about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has already drawn his attention to the problems in Nottinghamshire, but library authorities all over the country are cutting their budgets as a direct result of the Government's policies. Has he not been told that Somerset, for the second time in recent years, is not buying any adult fiction this year? Does he not understand the cultural damage that that is doing to literacy, reading and education and the economic damage that it is doing to the publishing industry, the book selling industry and companies that exist in every hon. Member's constituency that rely on information from the public library service?
When will the Minister understand that his Secretary of State has a statutory responsibility under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to provide a comprehensive public library service? He is failing to meet that responsibility in Somerset and many other library authorities around the country.

Mr. Sproat: I am acutely aware that it has been a tight settlement for local authorities. I am also aware that under the 1964 Act all library authorities have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service.
The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to Somerset. My chief library adviser plans to go down there later this week or next week to see why it is proposing to make a cut in its allocation to its library service.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my area of East Sussex, the Lib-Lab pact that currently runs the county council has deemed it appropriate to spend money on buying so-called gay and lesbian literature to place in our public libraries?

Mr. Sproat: I did not know that item of information, but I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will send me further details on the subject.

Holiday Statistics

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of holidays by British people are taken (a) in Britain and (b) abroad; and what were the figures for 1970. [14179]

Mr. Dorrell: In 1994, 54 per cent. of holidays of four nights or more by British people were taken in Britain and 46 per cent. abroad. In 1970, 86 per cent. of such holidays were taken in Britain and 14 per cent. abroad.

Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department's report on tourism, "Competing with the


Best", has been warmly welcomed throughout the industry and almost everywhere? Does he agree that that is evidence that the Department of National Heritage takes the tourism industry very seriously, and is now in a good position to ensure that English and British tourism are made attractive to British people so as to persuade them to take more of their long and short-term holidays in this country?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the tourist sector. It is only right that the DNH should accord substantial importance to the sector. It accounts for 5 per cent. of national income; it employs 1.5 million people in Britain. It is part of the answer to the question, "Where do the jobs of the future come from?" A 25 per cent. increase in employment in tourism in the past 10 years is reason enough for us to take real interest in the future success of that sector.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the south-west provides the greatest stimulus to the increase in the encouraging figures that he gives? Will he therefore bear in mind the fact that some of us are fed up with the fact that Wales and Scotland receive very much larger amounts of money to spend on their tourist boards than we do in England? We would like him to rectify that.

Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend will know what I mean when I say that I am not responsible for the budgets of the Welsh and Scottish boards. I am responsible for the success of the industry in England and for the promotion overseas of the British industry as a whole. That is why we have increased the budget for promoting Britain as a tourist destination overseas, and it is why we attach real importance to improving the quality of the tourist product in England.
I do not believe that public funding is the key to improving the English tourist product. It is a huge wealth-creating sector, and the key is to ensure that the structure within which it works allows it to continue to expand and, indeed, allows the rate of expansion to increase.

School Sports Facilities

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the progress which he has made with the Secretary of State for Education about the greater use of school sports facilities by the wider public. [14180]

Mr. Sproat: The community use of school sports facilities will be a key element in the sports White Paper, which my right hon. Friend announced on 23 March 1995.

Mr. Booth: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the cross-Government importance of sport and of the importance of using school sports facilities, not least in inner-city regeneration, in health and in law and order policy. Will he assure the House that cross-party or cross-Government talks are going on between those relevant Departments, including the Department for Education, which he has just mentioned, and will he come to the House with a policy that assures us that there will

be a presumption—indeed, that there will always be permission for schools to use their facilities for the benefit of the local community?

Mr. Sproat: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important argument. We do want more school facilities to be used by the local community. I hope that, if plans are submitted seeking national lottery funding that include a large community as well as schools element, they will have a good chance of being accepted.
As far as other Departments are concerned, I am currently having talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on that very subject, to discover whether we cannot reach a happier solution than has sometimes obtained in recent years.

Mr. Barnes: Ten per cent. of the people referred to in the original question are disabled and many disabled people wish to make considerable use of sports facilities. Is anything being done in connection with the Department for Education to ensure that they are able to do that? Is it not unfortunate that the Disability Discrimination Bill excludes most educational institutions from its provisions?

Mr. Sproat: The provision of sports facilities for persons with disabilities is extremely important. When the Sports Council awards grants to governing bodies for sporting provision, it takes directly into account the question of provision for persons with disabilities.

Dr. Spink: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the great sporting tradition of Canvey island, and particularly that of Furtherwick Park school. Will he consider very carefully with his colleagues in Education any developments regarding the CTC sporting initiative?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I certainly will. My hon. Friend has, with his usual persistence, brought that important matter to my attention privately and I will certainly do everything that I can to help him.

Public Libraries

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the provision of public libraries. [14182]

Mr. Sproat: Responsibility for providing public library services rests with local library authorities. My Department's task is to monitor developments and to ensure the provision of a comprehensive and efficient service.

Mr. Janner: In monitoring developments and particularly in imposing what the Minister referred to as a "tight settlement", does he appreciate that libraries all over the country have had to cut their facilities? In Leicestershire, for the sake of £50,000, the Information in Business partnership between De Montfort university and Leicestershire county council has been ended. Will the Minister re-examine the situation and see whether he can suggest some way of restoring that previously invaluable service to business and to employers in Leicestershire?

Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman will know, such management details are matters for the local authority.


However, if he will send me the details of the incident to which he refers I will gladly pass them to the proper authorities.

Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disquiet in the whole county of Leicestershire about the consequences for public library services of any reorganisation of local government? Will he ensure—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will—that no matter what happens to local government services in Leicestershire, there is always a good, across-the-county provision of public library services?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, is the short answer. My Department has established an expert working group to ensure that the results of the Local Government Commission's inquiry and the Government's decisions about the commission's report on unitary authorities are carried out in such a way as to ensure an improvement in library services.

Mr. Corbyn: In monitoring the performance of library authorities around the country, what information can the Minister give to the House about libraries which have been saved from closure by local campaigns to defend them but which, as a consequence, are seldom open, usually understaffed and unable to purchase any new books? Does he not think it a disgrace that in Britain in 1995 library opening hours are declining constantly, the number of new books purchased is declining and the number of children able to use those libraries is also declining?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is not accurate in some of the things that he has said. It is certainly true that, in certain areas, the number of hours that libraries are open has been cut. That is often due to demographic changes. It is up to the local authorities and to the libraries themselves to work out which libraries should be open at what hours.
Notwithstanding the fact that some library opening hours have been cut, there are now more libraries than there were 10 years ago. More books are being borrowed from those libraries, with the average person borrowing about nine and a half books per year.

Pools Promoters

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from pools promoters regarding equality of treatment with the national lottery. [14183]

Mr. Dorrell: I have received a number of representations from pools promoters about the national lottery.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the pools promoters are now in very serious difficulties—indeed, they face a crisis—because of the phenomenal success of the national lottery which is taking away their natural custom? As a result, hundreds of people have lost their jobs and, more importantly, many of the charities which benefited from the pools are being deprived of their incomes. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to equalise the situation

and create a level playing field over and above the steps that he has taken already in terms of advertising and opening further retail outlets?

Mr. Dorrell: I certainly acknowledge that the introduction of the national lottery has had an effect on pools companies' operations. Before we introduce more changes to the regime applying to such companies, it is important to see the effect of those already agreed—particularly the change that allows pools companies access to television advertising, which was announced by the Government in the last six weeks. We want to see the effect of that work through before we decide what happens next.

Mr. Orme: Many people want to know what effect the introduction of scratch cards is having, not only on football pools but on small lotteries—many of which will face extinction unless something is done. Will the Secretary of State present a review of that situation in the not-too-distant future?

Mr. Dorrell: I have repeatedly given assurances that we will monitor the effect of the national lottery on a range of institutions that feel that their operations may be affected. However, the House must also keep an eye on the national lottery's achievements. It has already mobilised about £300 million for good causes since it started last November, which is a huge increase in the resources available. While the national lottery has had an effect on others operating close to it, we should not lose sight of its achievements in mobilising resources not previously available to good causes.

Competitive Sports

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to produce proposals to encourage the development of competitive sports amongst young people. [14184]

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his support for the development of competitive sports by young people. [14186]

Mr. Sproat: The development of competitive sports among young people will be a key element in the sports White Paper that my right hon. Friend announced on 23 March. The White Paper will be published in the early summer.

Mr. Marshall: Did my hon. Friend read the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph? Does he agree that there is a risk of producing a generation of overweight kids due to over-indulgent diet and inadequate exercise? What does my hon. Friend mean by "in the early summer"? Will that coincide with the start of the cricket season or of the shooting season?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I did read the Daily Telegraph leader, which I thought was overwhelming correct. I hope that the White Paper will direct itself to positive solutions, to put right the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned. The White Paper will certainly be published before England beat the West Indies in a test match.

Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Gravesham cup competition, which is organised by teachers of grant-maintained and county schools in my


constituency? It involves leagues of various age groups in football, rugby, cricket, hockey, basketball and tennis. Does my hon. Friend agree with the headmaster of Northfleet school in my constituency, who states:
Competition is good—it drives up standards and fosters links between schools"?
Is it not the case that if there were more such competition, Army recruiters would not have expressed the opinion that our young people are unfit?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I was interested to hear about the schools in his constituency and would be glad to receive more details. I hope that the spur of competition within schools and between schools, and traditional competitive team games, will follow the White Paper.

Ms Hoey: Can the Minister give an assurance that the White Paper will not take as long to appear as that on the Sports Council, which took two years? Schools cannot be persuaded to compete among themselves unless local authorities have the resources to fund travel by pupils. Will that aspect be covered by the White Paper?

Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Lady's first point, I hope that the White Paper will be out in a matter of months, which will be rather quicker than the paper to which she referred. Her point about travel was a good one. School teams often want to travel to play other schools but cannot, because they cannot get the transport to do so. I hope that the White Paper will direct itself to that issue.

Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister recognise that there is no popular support for concentrating solely on competitive games in our schools? About three quarters of those who responded to the recent consultation on the national curriculum were opposed to compelling our 14 to 16-year-olds to play competitive sport. Is that just one more example of the Government not listening to those at the sharp end?
While we are on the subject of listening, what did the Minister make of last week's finding by the Secondary Heads Association that these same 14 to 16-year-olds are playing sport of all kinds for only about 60 minutes a week, when, only six months ago, the Prime Minister backed Labour's claim for a minimum two hours a week?

Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I did not say—I certainly would not say—that schools should play only traditional team sports. But it is in those sports that the decline has been greatest. We must therefore ensure that they are played as well as individual sports. We want a proper mix.
I too read the Secondary Heads Association's paper and found it extremely interesting. It made some forceful points—in particular, the central point that physical education in schools has declined by 35 per cent. in the past four years. All of us find that worrying. It is exactly that sort of problem that we want to help to remedy by means of the White Paper.

Mr. Tracey: In his deliberations, will my hon. Friend recognise that young people, especially teenagers, want to play individual sports far more than they want to play team games? The Minister may personally regret that but

it is a fact. Is he aware of a pilot study going on in four London secondary schools, led by Mr. Mark Barker and others, which deals precisely with that point?

Mr. Sproat: Of course pupils at schools must have the opportunity to play individual, as well as traditional team sports. But because there has been too much decline in traditional team sports in recent years, I must emphasise the great advantages that pupils can derive from them. We are talking not just about generating champions but about lessons of discipline, commitment, courage, winning modestly, and losing gracefully. All those are well learned from traditional team sports, which is why we want to revive them beside individual sports.

Television

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for encouraging the production of television programmes in the United Kingdom. [14185]

Mr. Dorrell: There are provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990, and there will be provisions in the new BBC agreement, which encourage programme making in the UK, both nationally and in the regions.

Mr. Mitchell: The Minister will recognise that the production of high-quality programmes has always been one of the main strengths of British television, but that it was undermined by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Why does he not now seek to revive it by giving television production some of the tax concessions that the film industry needs; and use the opportunity of the relaxation of the rules on cross-media ownership to require those who want to take transmission facilities to produce programmes and invest in production too? That would ensure that the Gadarene, greedy rush—of whatever creatures want to get into television—makes a commitment and contribution to programme production as well.

Mr. Dorrell: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's description of the effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It was that Act which introduced the 25 per cent. independent production quota, which has been the chief cause of the flowering of the independent production sector in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have contemplated introducing tax concessions for programme makers. Given the quality of British television compared with that available through most foreign broadcasting sectors, there is precious little evidence that further tax concessions are necessary. British television, as the hon. Gentleman says, is good.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend positively discourage the increase in programming that seems to be of the factional variety, in which fiction and fact get confused—with special reference to current affairs broadcasting? Will he initiate an inquiry into that issue? The first witness that he might like to call to give evidence might be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Dorrell: Responsibility for the terms of individual programmes rests with the broadcasters. The distinction between fact and fiction, in which my hon. Friend is interested, is one that any broadcaster must be concerned


about. Legislation places obligations and requirements on broadcasters clearly to demarcate the difference between opinion and fact.

Mr. Chris Smith: Is not a crucial part of producing television programmes in the United Kingdom making sure that we have an independent-minded BBC? Does not the Minister agree that tough, vigorous and probing questioning of us politicians by BBC journalists is an essential part of the democratic process? Will he tell his right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment that the BBC is doing its proper questioning job, must continue doing it and must not be allowed to cave in to spurious Tory pressure?

Mr. Dorrell: That is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition. We have heard complaints over 15 years from the Labour party about broadcasters and the media being allegedly biased against it. As practising politicians, we have all had experience of questioners or journalists going beyond, we thought, the bounds of the task that they had been given. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is right to say that it is important that when people transgress they learn by their mistakes and seek better in future to deliver the obligation that is imposed upon them by legislation.

Departmental Report

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the working of his Department. [14187]

Mr. Dorrell: My Department published its annual report on 9 March; it includes an overview of its performance and plans, its expenditure details and information on the management of the Department. A copy is available in the Library.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national lottery has been a great success, and because of that a number of good causes will benefit? Does he see some red faces on the Opposition Benches among those who opposed the lottery?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the achievements of the national lottery. It is certainly one of the great achievements of the early years of the Department of National Heritage, although the principal responsibility for having made it possible rests with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rather than the new Department. It would be nice to think that there were Opposition Members with red faces at their failure to endorse enthusiastically my right hon. Friend's initiative, which has provided £300 million for good causes since November. That is a new source of money for sport, the arts and the heritage, which no other means of mobilisation could possibly have provided. The hon. Gentleman supported it, but not all his hon. Friends gave their support.

Mr. Maclennan: To correct the balance with reference to the Secretary of State's answer to the question about the BBC, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he has a prime responsibility to ensure freedom of expression as guaranteed by the European convention on human rights? Although individual Ministers and

Members may become irritated from time to time, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that responsibility is one to which he must attach the highest importance?

Mr. Dorrell: Is it really the hon. Gentleman's case that all human kind is fallible except BBC interviewers? Surely we should all aspire to high standards of independence and recognise that occasionally we do not meet them. The important thing is to learn by our mistakes.

Mr. Jessel: Far from correcting any balances, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the arts in Britain have a high standard of excellence? Britain is one of the arts capitals of the world. We have tremendous talent in the theatre, music and all the other arts as well as in our splendid national heritage. My right hon. Friend's Department is doing an extremely fine job and we should continue to build on that.

Mr. Dorrell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right to draw attention to the strength and vigour of our artistic tradition in Britain. He is right also to stress the importance of ensuring that that continues as part of a healthy and vigorous society. It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) did, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative in introducing the national lottery will, when the project is mature, provide over £300 million a year of new money to reinforce the strength of the arts sector to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Mr. Grocott: As we all know from reports in the weekend press, all Government Departments are thrashing around trying to find something popular to do in the next Session. In a bipartisan spirit, may I offer the Secretary of State my Television Sport (Public Access) Bill, which had overwhelming support in the Commons when it was presented as a ten-minute Bill a few weeks ago and which would ensure that major sporting events are available on the channels that most of us and all our constituents can see? I suggest that he should adopt it in time for the autumn, when yet another sporting event—the Ryder cup—will be lost to the major television channels. It must be bipartisan for me to want to suggest something helpful to the Government, but I suggest that the Minister should adopt that Bill. It is tremendously popular. Will he break the Government's habit of a lifetime and do something that is popular?

Mr. Dorrell: Even in the days of the European Union, I am cautious of Greeks bearing gifts. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's approach, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of sport or heritage to reduce the value of the broadcasting contracts on offer. The difficult question that the hon. Gentleman fails to answer is how he would explain to the representatives of English cricket that his policy would leave them many millions of pounds poorer because they would be unable to enter a multipartite discussion for their contract rights. It is the open market which mobilises large extra sums of money into sport and, increasingly, into the heritage and the arts as well.

Mr. Luff: What message will my right hon. Friend send to the group of business men whom I shall be entertaining at the Swan theatre in Worcester on Saturday


to encourage them to sponsor productions in that theatre and to tell them about the work that the Department does to encourage business sponsorship of the arts?

Mr. Dorrell: I invite my hon. Friend to draw their attention to the fact that one of the growing budgets in my Department is for what we now call the pairing scheme, which offers public support to businesses which engage in sponsorship activity with arts organisations. I would also encourage him to point out to his business men that if they get involved in arts sponsorship they are following the precedent established by many other British businesses over the past 20 years, during which business sponsorship of the arts has grown from virtually nothing to about £70 million a year today. British businesses sponsor the arts because they recognise that associating their businesses with high quality arts products is in the interests of their business as well as of the arts organisation.

Public Libraries

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has on expenditure by public libraries on books. [14192]

Mr. Sproat: For the past three years, with the help of the library and information statistics unit at Loughborough university, the Department has collected information from local authorities about their expenditure plans for each year. That specifically includes expenditure on books and other library materials. I also have access to the public library statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Ms Church: Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when he last went to a public library and borrowed a book. What advice can he give my constituents in Dagenham who are living on income support? Can he tell us what proportion of income support is designated for spending on books? My constituents do not have the money to purchase books, the stocks in school libraries are depleted, and the public libraries are becoming a disgrace.

Mr. Sproat: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is 2 pm on Friday 24 March 1995. On the second part, as books from public libraries are free, one does not have to pay for them through income support or anything else.

Television Licences

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the operation of the current rules governing eligibility for concessionary television licence schemes; and if he will make a statement. [14193]

Mr. Dorrell: The Department receives many representations on the subject of the concessionary licence scheme. The Government's White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", published in July 1994, made it clear that we had no intention of undertaking a further review of the scheme. That remains the position.

Mr. O'Brien: There could be no more disappointing response from the Minister than that. Is he aware that many of my constituents and old people throughout the country are in despair because the licence fee increases

each year and television is the only means of entertainment that many of them have. It is disappointing that the Government will not even contemplate reviewing the rules. The old people of this country have been let down tremendously by the Government. We have an opportunity for a Minister to do something to help the old people and he is refusing. That is shameful.

Mr. Dorrell: The reason why I am refusing is that I do not think it a sensible use of public funds to regard television licences as a form of social security. I am in favour of resources to support old people being concentrated on those in real need. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to abolish television licences for pensioners, he must explain why he thinks that that would be a sensible use of £500 million of public money and whether he could not do more good by better concentrating that money on those in real need.

Public Libraries

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the future of the public library service. [14194]

Mr. Sproat: The Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the whole of the public library service. I hope to make a further statement on the review shortly.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister state unequivocally that in no circumstances will he, as part of that review, countenance the privatisation of any public library or any service within public libraries?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will make in due course. However, I can tell him that the consultants that we used recommended against privatisation of the public library system. I should therefore be very surprised if that were to be recommended. Indeed, it would be contrary to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
On the question of contracting out, which the Labour party sometimes regards as privatisation, KPMG Peat Marwick delivered its report on this important subject last Friday at 10 o'clock, and we shall look at it closely. Whatever is or is not contracted out, however, the 1964 Act—which requires all local authorities to maintain a comprehensive, effective and efficient service—will remain in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Cabinet Committees

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to allow people and organisations outside Government the opportunity to have access and input into the deliberative processes of those Cabinet Committees of which he is chairman. [14208]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): Input into the policy-making process is always welcome, but Cabinet Committees meet in private.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the terms of reference of the so-called banana skins


Cabinet Committee? Will people attending that Committee be subject to the constraints of the Privy Council oath? Will it be possible for the chairman of the Conservative party to deliver documents from Conservative central office to that Committee or report from that Committee to Conservative central office? Is there not some incompatibility in his membership of that Cabinet Committee, which is served by civil servants?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions which display his ignorance of these matters. It is a Committee of Ministers charged with co-ordinating and presenting the policy of the elected Government of the day and it is serviced by civil servants. Under any previous Administration, the hon. Gentleman and the House would not even have known of the existence of the Committee. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, its terms of reference are already in the public domain, as is its membership.
The Cabinet Minister without Portfolio attends the Committee in his role as a Minister. Indeed, he is also a member of eight other Cabinet Committees. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the membership of the Committee is published and it operates under the normal rules affecting all Cabinet Committees.

Mr. David Shaw: Despite the Government opening up a great deal of information about how Cabinet Committees meet and operate, is there not still a large amount of information available that the press does not always report? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he announced recently that Britain is spending a record amount on research and development—£13.8 billion last year—but that that information was not widely reported?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been responsible for a number of open Government initiatives under which more than 24,000 records have now been released. I confirm that, on 17 March, the Central Statistical Office released figures showing that the United Kingdom's gross domestic expenditure on research and development was £13.8 billion, which represented an increase in cash terms of 6 per cent. from the level in 1992. I hope that that will be as widely reported as the other matters to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Labour Members welcome the presence of the Conservative party chairman on that and, indeed, any other Cabinet Committee because it is in our interests that he should stay there. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give us a clue about the responsibilities of the new Government presentation Committee? Is it responsible, for instance, for the threat that nurses could lose their pay review body unless they toe the Government line, or for the fact that ambulance staff have been awarded a pay increase of 28p per day at the same time as "Panorama" is disclosing that water bosses are sitting on £4 million of personal profit in addition to massive salary increases? The Committee may be responsible for the presentation of such acts, but there is no way in which it can make them palatable to the public.

Mr. Hunt: At least the Government understand the importance of policy. First, we have the policy and then we concern ourselves with the presentation. The Labour party in opposition seem to believe that it can handle

things the other way round: it is over-concerned with presentation and leaves a policy vacuum at the heart of the party.

National Science Week

Dr. Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to visit schools during National Science Week. [14209]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): My right hon. Friend visited nine events at which school children were present during National Science Week. I managed to outscore him by visiting 12. In all, more than 20 events involving school children were visited by my right hon. Friend and myself during science week.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by their activities last week, he and my right hon. Friend have shown their wholehearted commitment to supporting science and education in schools, which are contributing so much to our economic success? Will my hon. Friend join me in promoting the top flight bursary scheme, which gives £500 extra per year to every top student who chooses to do engineering at university?

Mr. Horam: I hope that we have shown our support for National Science Week. It was a fairly exhausting week, so I would be disappointed if we had not achieved something. My hon. Friend's point about the top flight scheme is well made. It is an excellent scheme, which means that school children can go to university and obtain a bursary funded partly by the Government and the Engineering Council. To promote the scheme, we sent out a leaflet last summer to all secondary schools, further education colleges and higher education courses. Perhaps we should consider what my hon. Friend has said and send out a further leaflet this summer to ensure that the message is really banged home.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister agree that the one thing that will encourage school children to welcome and embrace science is a degree of openness? Has not one of the problems been that they scientists have not been as open about their work as they could have been? Will the Minister comment on the report in The Observer yesterday that British scientists who have examined the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl have been prevented by the European Commission from making their findings known at a proposed London press conference? If there is a major problem there, British scientists who are part of the international team looking at the plant need to be as open as possible about the difficulties, so that this country, with its expertise, can offer all possible help to prevent a second catastrophic explosion.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he knows, the European Union is financing work on the feasibility study for a shelter over Chernobyl. It would be a serious matter if there were problems in relation to that. I take what the hon. Gentleman says seriously. Obviously, all information on the matter should be made available.

Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend build on the success of National Science Week by campaigning to correct public misconceptions about science, and in particular about the importance and excellence of our national


science base and its significance for this country's future? That is evidenced by the large increase in funding for science and technology in 1992–93, showing the commitment of both Government and industry to achieving the fruits of science for the benefit of our people.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the United Kingdom's great strength has been in the biological and life sciences. The general opinion, which I am sure is right, is that those are the important sciences for the 21st century. The fact that we are putting so much effort into those sciences, and that my right hon. Friend has slightly shifted the balance towards life sciences during the current review of research council spending, shows our intention to support them strongly.

Contract Researchers

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is taking to improve conditions for contract researchers funded from the science vote. [14210]

Mr. David Hunt: The policies in the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential".

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Chancellor agree that contract researchers have been undervalued for all too long? Will he give his full support to proposals by the research councils to give research contractors terms and conditions of employment equivalent to those of permanent staff?

Mr. Hunt: A number of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for the research councils and the universities. I welcome the fact that the number of researchers has grown. The number of PhDs has also grown. We need to ensure that that continues if we are to invest wisely in our future.

Research Councils

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will pay a visit to the research councils in Swindon to discuss funding. [14211]

Mr. Horam: I hope to visit the research councils shortly to discuss both funding and other issues. It is a high priority.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in the science budget was warmly welcomed by the research councils? Does he agree with me that the success of National Science Week is likely to lead in due course to a large increase in demands for the science budget to be enlarged—supported, as it was, not only by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, but by the BBC and by staff at the research councils in Swindon?

Mr. Horam: I was glad that the research councils played a significant part in the whole of National Science Week. They established a video link whereby young people could question the director-general of science, research and development in the Brussels Commission on his priorities. I found that very interesting. They also ran

a science quiz, which I gather operated successfully around all the pubs in Swindon, although I think that that was a rather more light-hearted approach.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Government's response to the proposal by the Royal Microscopical Society, backed by research councils, that it is highly desirable that there should be a microscope in every school, if only to increase the sense of wonder that is so important in education?

Mr. Horam: Decisions on such matters are rightly for the research councils, but I will consider what the hon. Gentleman says. It is an interesting suggestion.

National Science Week

Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimates he has made of the total number of children involved in National Science Week; what proportion were girls; and if he will make a statement. [14212]

Mr. David Hunt: At least 1.5 million, of whom I understand that approximately 50 per cent. were girls.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful for that response. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that we pin down those figures accurately and that we analyse why, even though a large proportion of girls participated in National Science Week, as they did last year, we still have not broken through and persuaded more girls to participate in science at A-level and beyond? Will the Chancellor ensure, with his colleagues at the Department for Education, that urgent research is undertaken to correct that huge anomaly?

Mr. Hunt: First, I pay tribute to the many organisations which put on events during National Science Week to increase public understanding of science, engineering and technology. Many of those were directed at boys and girls. I understand that at least 1.5 million people watched children's television such as "Blue Peter" and "Newsround", which carried many items. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about girls, we want to see equality of opportunity. Indeed, the Royal Society's new Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships, for which I recently announced support, should help retain young women in post-doctoral research. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to start at the earliest possible age by attracting more boys and girls into science as a career.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the success of "Realising our Potential" in 1993—the first White Paper on science for more than 20 years—we have seen a continuing concentration on science education and that the success of National Science Week last week was proof positive of that? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the success of Conservative policies in the past 15 years derived from one of the best lady scientists ever?

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about Baroness Thatcher. As for the future, much of the strength in our science and engineering base is due to our free enterprise system, and we have a reputation throughout the world as a centre of free enterprise. We published today the reports of the Technology Foresight exercise, which contain examples


of what must happen in the future, including a more positive partnership between industry, Government and our best brains.

Research

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the development gap between basic and industrially relevant research. [14213]

Mr. David Hunt: I find difficulty in knowing to what gap the hon. Lady is referring. If she has in mind the translation of good research ideas into marketable products, the Government help through programmes such as Link and Technology Foresight. Only this morning, I published five Technology Foresight panel reports.

Mrs. Campbell: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself referred to the development gap in his interview with the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, so I am surprised that he does not know what I am talking about.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation has a great deal in common with near-market research, which was slashed by Baroness Thatcher during the latter years of her reign as Prime Minister? Does he further agree that science and technology should not pick up the tab for research and development projects which are being cut by Departments?

Mr. Hunt: First, if the hon. Lady looks at her question, she will realise the point that I was making. Secondly, it is important in Technology Foresight for there to be a positive partnership. I take pride in the fact that we have had a world-leading Technology Foresight exercise involving 15 different panels in which our best brains from science, the universities and industry have come together with the Government to look 10 to 20 years ahead. I hope that all the reports that we have published will be carefully considered by all the industries involved.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that universities and industry must collaborate on research if universities are not to become ivory towers and so that industry can benefit from the brains within the universities?

Mr. Hunt: While stressing the importance of basic research, which is an important ingredient in the competitiveness of the United Kingdom, I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will have found that a new partnership is developing following on from the initiative started by my predecessor, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in bringing together industry and academia in a positive way. That will have benefits for everyone concerned with improving our standard of living and quality of life.

Executive Agencies

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to improve relations between members of the public and executive agency offices not located geographically close to their

clients; and if he will make a statement. [14214]

Mr. Horam: Many—the "Next Steps Review 1994" is full of examples.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for my constituents to feel a personal relationship with the people in Glasgow, Blackpool and beyond who are dealing with their problems, particularly when they often seem to speak a different language? Can something be done to make the relationships more personal, to the advantage of my constituents as they deserve that?

Mr. Horam: I hope that my hon. Friend was not talking about differences in accent, but about terminology and jargon. There is a problem in the link between distant centres and the local Benefits Agency offices, but we are trying to improve that through local customer surveys, visits by Benefits Agency staff to local libraries, health centres and community centres, a one-stop shop and improved opening hours. All those improvements are being put into the melting pot to try to improve the relationship. The National Audit Office said recently—I am not sure whether this relates to my hon. Friend's local office—that there had been an improvement in the relationship between the London district offices and the Glasgow and Blackpool centres as a result of those efforts.

Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine rang up one of those agencies—situated in Belfast—to explain her problem, only to be told, "If you were living here, you would know what problems really were"?

Mr. Horam: Perhaps in the first instance the hon. Gentleman's constituent should have gone to her local office. The staff there could then have rung Northern Ireland.

Scientific Inventions

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to improve the application of scientific inventions to industry. [14215]

Mr. David Hunt: Extensive.

Mr. Flynn: Are not the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harlow among our finest institutions for scientific invention, especially in non-nuclear, renewable energy resources? Should not such work be applied to arrest the development of nuclear installations at Ignalina in Lithuania, Privdannekransk in Odessa and especially at Chernobyl, which, as we heard earlier, are in imminent danger of causing a problem? Should they not be applied to prevent the European investment bank from using money to create a potential new Chernobyl reactor at Mochove in Slovakia?

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I would have preferred a little more notice of the detailed nature of his question. I will consider carefully all the matters that he raised, but I have two comments. First, I was already aware of the tremendous work performed by the energy technology support unit, which I first experienced when I was Energy Minister about 10 years ago.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said a moment ago, the European Commission is funding a feasibility study into the stabilisation of the shelter over the damaged remains of reactor 4 at Chernobyl. The Alliance consortium of western engineering companies carried out phase 1 of the study, which was completed recently, and its findings were presented to a panel of Ukrainian and western experts in

Kiev from 14 to 16 March. The report is understood to confirm doubts about the long-term stability of the shelter and the need for early action to construct a replacement. Nuclear safety at Chernobyl is a matter for the Ukrainian authorities, but further EU-funded work is planned on design requirements for a new shelter in the second phase of the project, and I am keeping in close touch with the situation.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement on the increasingly ugly situation that is developing in Washington in relation to wild talk of military action against Iraq? Is it not highly desirable that the Commons should at least hear about that and have an opportunity to discuss it before any military strike?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Government are seeking to make a statement on that matter, but there will be questions to the Foreign Office later this week, and the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members might be able to raise that matter then.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder what redress is available to hon. Members who find themselves coming under undue pressure from outside organisations on subjects that are of interest to the House. I have in mind the reports about the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union in respect of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and consideration of the future of clause IV.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. Our standing orders and our procedures have not been breached, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have a copy of the report that he is referring to, I will take a look at it. I have not seen it, and I need to be fully informed before I can comment.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, on a matter that affects the responsibilities and duties of the House. At the weekend and on Friday, there were extensive leaks to the media of what the Government are hoping to include in a Queen's Speech that cannot be delivered until November at the earliest—assuming that a general election does not intervene.
Clearly nothing is more important to the responsibilities of the House than knowing the Government's plans for the following parliamentary year. I have no strong views on whether it is good to leak those plans six months in advance,

but surely anything as important to the House should at least be announced to the House by the Leader of the House, and should not be dealt with in leaks to the media.

Madam Speaker: I make no comments on leaked documents or leaked information. I have enough to do in dealing with authoritative information, let alone leaked material.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. I know that you uphold the principle that any hon. Member who receives payment on a matter that might affect his judgment should make a declaration to that effect. Should not the same rule apply to political journalists who deal with this place?
Would it be appropriate to refer to the Nolan committee, through you or by some other means in this House, the fact that it is now being reported that a political journalist, John Humphrys of the BBC, failed to disclose during his interviews on the "Today" programme that he would receive payment for his involvement in the overtly anti-Government education rally last week?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is a matter that he can refer to the Nolan committee, knowing the terms of reference of that committee, as an individual Member he is perfectly free to do so.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's Order Paper shows that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) intends to raise on the Adjournment, under Standing Order No. 9, the proposed sale of the RAF Bentwaters base in Suffolk. You have ruled in the past that, when hon. Members refer in questions or Adjournment debates to a matter that concerns another hon. Member's constituency, they should at least consult the hon. Member concerned.
I understand that the hon. Member for Ipswich has not advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that he intends to raise that matter on the Adjournment. Should not that strict convention, to which you normally like us to adhere, be observed for the sake of future good practice?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. When an hon. Member wishes to raise, especially in an Adjournment debate, the question of some development or project that concerns another Member's constituency, not only is it a matter of courtesy to let the other hon. Member know but it is a matter of good custom and practice. I deprecate the fact that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has not been informed that that Adjournment debate is to take place this evening.

Orders of the Day — Disability Discrimination Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order refers to the selection of amendments to the Bill before us. Could new clause 17 in my name be debated in association with new clause 1 on the Disability Rights Commission, which has been selected for discussion? My new clause is very much in line with new clause 1, and I believe that it would cause no difficulty if we discussed the two together.

Madam Speaker: I had that entirely in mind, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I think alike on those matters.

Ordered,

That the Disability Discrimination Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part II of the Bill, new Clauses relating to education, new Clauses relating to Part IV of the Bill, other new Clauses, Amendments relating to Clause No. 1, Amendments relating to Schedule No. 1, remaining Amendments to the Bill, new Schedules and remaining Amendments to the Schedules to the Bill.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

New clause 6

SMALL FIRMS

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to take such practical steps as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet their obligations under this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying the circumstances under which adjustments may be considered reasonable for employers who have fewer than 20 employees'.—[Sir John Hannam]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 16—Small firms (No. 2)—

`(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to make such financial provision by way of grants or loans as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet their obligations under this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the circumstances under which adjustments will be considered reasonable for employers who have fewer than 20 employees, and such regulations may specify appropriate periods within which such adjustments shall be made.
(3) Regulations under this section may make different provisions for different circumstances and different sizes of employer and specify different periods within which different adjustments shall be made; and regulations made under this section may be varied by subsequent regulations.'.

Amendment No. 7, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 14.

Government amendment No. 122.

Sir John Hannam: As we embark on this important Report stage of the Disability Discrimination Bill and on

this debate on the small firms exemption, it is right for me to offer my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward this anti-discrimination legislation. After many years of campaigning for acceptance by the Government of the need for such a measure, I feel that, since the consultation paper last July, we have seen real progress in strengthening and widening the proposals that were then put forward.
I pay tribute to the personal endeavours of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I hope that further progress will be made on Report and in the other place, so that disabled people will feel that a comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation has been put in place. I am confident that that will happen.
Clause 7 exempts firms that employ fewer than 20 people from its provisions. That means that, unless the Bill is amended, small firms will be able to discriminate legally against disabled people. In fact, the Bill provides the power not only to reduce the number of employees but to increase that number by regulation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me a clear assurance today that there will be no intention ever to use that power to increase the number to more than 20 employees—and that, in fact, the reverse will be the case.
I understand the reactions of small firms' organisations, which genuinely fear the impact of extra regulations and, of course, the costs that could be involved. In my view, however, there is ample protection in clause 6, which allows for the reasonableness of an employer's adjustments to be determined with reference to cost.
The small firms sector is the fastest growing sector in the economy. It employs some 34 per cent. of the work force in some 60 per cent. of firms. It is also the area of employment which is most suited to disabled people, and where quite small adjustments may result in a work opportunity being created.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member, whose work in this policy area is well known in all parts of the House of Commons. The hon. Member knows—indeed, no one knows better than him—that the organisations of and for disabled people, almost without exception, want the Bill to apply to employers of fewer than 25 people, just as much as it would apply to those who employ more than 25. Will the hon. Member give the House his indication of support for that proposition? The amendment goes some way, but, I think that he will agree, it is identical treatment that the organisations want.

Sir John Hannam: The right hon. Member was saying 25—I think that he meant 20 employees.

Mr. Morris: Merely a slip of the tongue.

Sir John Hannam: My keen objective is to see that figure brought down. I am still concerned and rather puzzled that we did not adopt the figure of 15, which was adopted in the American legislation. I want to develop that point.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister, who took the trouble to visit the United States to see for himself how the Americans with Disabilities Act, was working, said:
'reasonable accommodation' … cost nothing in 43 per cent. of cases because it involved just moving the furniture around or doing something sensible and practical like introducing different working hours.


He went on to say:
A large proportion of other adjustments costs very little."— [Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 149.]
We know from evidence in the United States that the cost implications for firms over there to achieve the removal of discrimination were in most cases very small.
It is interesting to note that, in its response to the Government's consultation document last year, the Confederation of British Industry, an employer organisation—although it represents mainly larger firms—voiced concern over the exclusion of small employers from employment rights. It argued for a phasing in of compliance requirements, and with it more support for small firms through schemes such as the access to work scheme, which the Government introduced and which is very welcome.
I should also like to point out that, in rural areas, small firms are the only possibility of employment for disabled people, especially in view of transport problems that they experience, which are as yet not included in the Bill. I hope to make progress on that front tomorrow when we address new clause 11.
Another quirk of the Bill is that franchises are counted as separate firms, which means that individual outlets of firms such as McDonalds, which employs fewer than 20 people in each of its individual outlets, would not be covered by the Bill's provisions, despite the enormous resources of such companies. McDonalds, incidentally, does a great deal for disablement causes.
An example of the sort of discrimination which may exist in a firm was given to me by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. The name of the girl involved was not given. She was told that she could not use her Braille equipment in work because it was considered too noisy. The Bill would make such an instruction unlawful if it was given by a company with more than 20 employees, but smaller firms will be given a free rein to discriminate in any way they wish. Many examples of such discrimination can be produced.
Surely we should create a fully accessible labour market, as possible. That would result in economic benefits as disabled people came off social security benefits and began to pay taxes. We know from talking to them that they always dream about doing that.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that this probing new clause has been tabled because his current proposals need to be adjusted to remove the possibility of the employee exemption figure being increased. I hope that he will say that he intends to bring us in line with, at least, the American figure of 15 employees at the earliest possible opportunity. On Second Reading my hon. Friend promised to review that employment level; I believe that that should be conducted at the earliest possible stage. Today, I hope that he will accept the principle behind the new clause, which would point us in that direction.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on tabling the new clause, although it does not go anywhere near far enough; nor is it likely to get there quickly enough. I understand, however, exactly why he has tabled it. If the Minister was minded to accept it, it would certainly get us marching in the right direction.
It was hard on Second Reading and in Committee, and it remains hard today, to understand why the Government are telling 96 in every 100 firms that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people with disabilities who seek jobs or who are employed. The reason for the Government's stance was given in paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper, to which the Minister referred several times in our earlier considerations on the Bill. It states:
It may be more difficult and burdensome for small firms without specialist personnel to get to grips with the new right and obtain the advice they need in particular cases
I hope to demonstrate that that is no more than a shabby excuse.
Of course small firms have different problems from larger ones, and of course they have smaller resources, but the Government do not use that argument to exempt them from legislation dealing with discrimination on grounds of race or gender. They do not use that argument when it comes to the intricacies of income tax, VAT, national insurance, sick pay, health and safety and all the rest of it. Every employer is treated equally in such matters. It is only in the case of people with disabilities that the Government say, "Carry on discriminating."
The Government opposed the establishment of a disability rights commission, because they said that those needing help to enforce the limited rights conferred by the Bill should turn to citizens advice bureaux or other such agencies for assistance. Why cannot small firms do the same? If it is good enough for a would-be employee, seeking to enforce the rights conferred in the Bill, to be sent in the direction of the CAB, why is that not good enough for the would-be employer? A ready source of advice is available. The Minister is negotiating on its funding, and I believe that a meeting about that will be held on 29 March.
Things get even more curious in the Government's silly argument when we consider paragraph 3.5 of the White Paper, which states:
The majority of disabled people who want to work, need no, or only very modest, help.
In Committee, the Minister reminded us that the "reasonable accommodation" employers are expected to make as a result of the Bill cost nothing in 43 out of every 100 cases in the United States—as the hon. Member for Exeter has already said—because it involved nothing more than moving furniture around or adjusting working hours. The Minister helpfully added that a large proportion of other adjustments cost very little.
There is another curiosity. We know that the Government will set financial limits on the cost of adjustments that an employer can reasonably be expected to make, perhaps based on rateable value to take rough account of company size.
What, then, is the problem? Having argued against a duty on every employer not to discriminate, the Government get pious. Paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper optimistically adds:
organisations representing smaller employers will be among those consulted on the proposed code of practice, and small firms will be encouraged to follow it voluntarily.
That is novel. After telling smaller employers that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people with disabilities, the Government raise the fond hope that they will do voluntarily what they are not required to do by


law. They truly are a Government who have been too long in the unreal world to know what goes on beyond those windows.
It is not as though the Government can claim that they have public opinion on their side. Of the 254 responses about whether small firms should be covered by that part of the Bill, 81 per cent. said they should, and only 17 per cent. said they should not. I immediately acknowledge that that was far from a scientific sample, because the number of responses about that issue was disappointingly small.
However, the missing opinion comes to us copper-bottomed. The Confederation of British Industry, even the illustrious Institute of Directors and the Employers' Forum on Disability, linking more than 100 top companies, say that it is wrong to have two categories of people in the world of work on the basis of drawing an arbitrary line.
That is not the end of it. One in every six people at work works in a small firm. In large parts of England, and more so in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, small firms are the only employers. Indeed, in the inner-city areas of Birmingham, for example, small firms vastly outnumber larger ones.
It will not wash for the Government to say that the four in every 100 firms that do employ more than 20 people are the only ones that matter. It is the 96 in every 100, now excluded, that provide the main opportunities for jobs for people with different abilities.
If the Minister does not know that, I shall tell him: larger firms are becoming smaller, employing fewer people, and there are fewer of them. The growth in jobs, even though many are part-time, is taking place among small firms. Also, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, some apparently large firms, such as McDonald's Restaurants and many others, are to be treated as small ones because they are franchise operations.
I believe that the amendments must be regarded in a wider context. Under the Bill, disabled people are to lose what protection the present quota scheme provides—and that is precious little. Under the scheme, only 10 employers have ever been taken to court, and not a single prosecution has succeeded in the past 20 years.
The Government are also to do away with statutory registration of people with disabilities so that, under the Bill, some people who are now at work will have even those protections taken away from them, whatever the size of the firm they work with. Where is that supposed to leave the 8,654 people with disabilities working in the 95 Remploy factories? Their work force is almost wholly drawn from people who are registered, and identified as such, through jobcentres.
While we are at it, does the Minister know that the replacement for the priority suppliers scheme, which was of such assistance to Remploy and sheltered workshops run by local councils and others, is causing immense problems? The special contracts arrangements limit possible rebids for work to a contract ceiling of £147,000.
Does he know, for example, that the Ministry of Defence usually places orders for uniforms and protective clothing in parcels of about £2 million? Does he know that some of the 12 Remploy factories specialising in textiles are running out of work, and that one at Alfreton is due to close,

while the Ministry of Defence has £10 million of unplaced contracts for uniforms hanging about as a result of the chaos in the change between the two schemes?
No one expects any firm, of whatever size, to meet unreasonable costs in employing people with disabilities. However, as the Employment Minister and his hon. Friend know full well, there is assistance available already through the access to work scheme and via PACTs—placement, assessment and counselling teams. As the Disability Alliance suggests, the national insurance holiday in the Jobseekers Bill could also be offered to employers in order to help to meet the cost of offering jobs to people with disabilities.
Perhaps the strongest argument against the discrimination that the Government want to retain for small firms is put by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, when it argues, quite properly, that new technology, especially in the widening field of information, will open up vast new job opportunities, many of which will be with small specialist firms. It is simply intolerable that people with different abilities, including the visually impaired, should be locked out of those opportunities.
I believe that the Government are making big fools of themselves over the exemption for small firms, which is no more than a bone-headed deregulation dogma by the Secretary of State for Employment. It is indefensible, and he and his Ministers know it. I hope that, tonight, enough hon. Members in the House will put equal treatment at work for all disabled people ahead of party labels.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I do not know how many people are employed in small businesses in this country. Various statistics have been cited, but the actual figure does not really matter. The point is that many people are employed in small firms, particularly in towns and villages in rural areas such as in south Warwickshire, which I represent. In the major economy, the trend towards downsizing, subcontracting and franchising makes it plain that we must regard small businesses as central to our economy. Small business constitutes the fastest growing sector in our economy.
The distinction that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) seeks to make between businesses employing fewer than 20 people and those employing 20 or more is an arbitrary one, which, in the end, does not stand up to scrutiny. I am not aware of any serious organisation representative of business which wants that distinction to be made. The Employers Forum on Disability, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors certainly reject that proposal.
My hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government are correct to be concerned not to lay gratuitous or unnecessary burdens on business. However, it is a question of whose burdens matter. It is not only the burdens on business men that matter, but also those on disabled people. Disabled people carry enormous burdens, and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to lighten their burdens.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, the Government's new clause 6 concerning reasonableness would provide ample security to small businesses and prevent them from suffering undue and genuinely burdensome responsibilities. Ironically, the Government's own proposals would involve somewhat burdensome responsibilities.
One can imagine that firms will move in and out of this legislative jurisdiction. On occasion, a business may employ 19 people and at other times it may employ 20 people. Is it helpful to require a firm to commute between two legislative regimes? I do not think it is. In any case, let us think less about imposing burdens on business and more about the contributions that people with impairments can, and desire to, make and of which we are depriving ourselves by allowing discrimination to be perpetuated.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed concern that small firms would not have the specialist personnel functions or the expertise to cope with the requirement that they should not discriminate against disabled people. It does not require any expertise or administrative sophistication to do the decent thing and behave properly. That is all that we require of small businesses. If they need support and advice, the PACT teams will assist them.
The Government should continue and further develop the access to work scheme, which provides some financial subvention in reasonable circumstances to assist disabled people into employment. That policy benefits all firms, including small businesses. My hon. Friend's amendment moves at least some way in the right direction.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister at least to remove the power in the Bill to raise the threshold above 20 employees. It is unimaginable that there could be any circumstances in which the Government would want to backtrack on the Bill's provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) suggested reducing the number to 15, to match the practice in the United States of America. If the Minister will do that, will he make a further commitment to phase out the small business exemption altogether over time?
4 pm
Those are all compromises and halfway houses, but the right thing would be to abolish the distinction altogether. After all, the Bill is an affirmation of the values of our society. It would be extraordinary and deeply offensive to propose that it should be within the law for a business employing fewer than 20 people to discriminate on the grounds of race or gender. We should equally accept, in a clear-cut fashion, that it is entirely unacceptable for an employing organisation or any other to discriminate unjustifiably against people who are disabled. One's basic rights as a human being and citizen should not depend on who happens to be one's employer.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Far fewer people are covered by the Government's Bill, including those in employment, than would be covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In the Government's measure, a whole list of exemptions and exclusions exclude four categories of persons. That would be true even if the argument for ending the distinction introduced by the 20-employee barrier was won.
The costs argument does not take account of the fact that some companies that employ fewer than 20 people are highly profitable, especially in a high-technology age in which the capital employed rather than the number of people may be the most important consideration. Often, companies that employ a large number of people are strapped for cash.
If there is to be a distinction—and I do not agree that there should be—it should not be in terms of the number of people employed. It may be argued that there is some rough

and ready justice in terms of profitability and the ability to absorb the costs involved, although it is argued also that the costs could be minor. If a distinction is to be made, there could be an argument for making it elsewhere.
The worst thing about the existing distinction is the message that it sends to disabled people that 96 firms out of 100, and many areas of the country where only small firms operate, will be no-go areas, and that disabled people will have to rely entirely on the good will of small firms to employ them. That creates the wrong atmosphere in which to pass legislation that the Minister claims represents a significant step forward for disabled people.
In north-east Derbyshire, Remploy, based in Alfreton, is closing. It has offered one of the rare opportunities for employment in an area of pit closures. Small firms, with fewer than 20 employees, have been important providers of jobs in the area. What alternative jobs are there, now that the mines have closed, and with them, the firms that serviced them? Such firms often employed more than 20 people, so this legislation would have applied to them.
Disabled people working for Remploy now have to travel further afield, to the Mansfield area. Meanwhile, their other commercial opportunities are beginning to disappear. That is why serious consideration must be given to access to employment for disabled people.
It is when we come to franchises that the Government's cut-off-20 staff or fewer—is shown up for what it is. McDonald's, which employs masses of people around the world, manages to avoid these provisions by operating under franchises. That is another good reason for rejecting the Government's contentions.
The new clause offers an opening—not complete change. The only way to bring about complete change would be to introduce the principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and to get rid of the distinction, based on size, between firms. In other Government legislation, the factors to be taken into consideration—reasonableness, cost, organisational and other difficulties—are considered before the law case by case.
That is why this legislation is wrong. The new clause, like our other amendments, tries to make the best of a bad job. It is fairly limited; we do not ask that the numbers come down to 15, or that other factors be taken into account. We are simply nudging the Government towards consideration of such points. That is worth while in itself.
Hon. Members of all parties ought to support the amendments in this batch, which in effect open up the legislation. I hope that the Minister will at least admit that there is some possibility of change. He should remember, when it comes to definitions and the areas of employment to be covered, that there is massive support in this House for the principles in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has been supported and sponsored at various times by 10 political parties in the House, including the two Conservative parties.
It is time for the Government to face up to the situation, and not to hide themselves away, preventing proper discussion in Committee of the measures in the other Bill that should have been included in this one.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this new clause, although it is really amendment No. 7 that appeals most to me—it would cut out the offending words altogether.
It is wrong to enshrine in law the unjustifiable principle that discrimination against disabled people in their place of work is acceptable if they work for companies with fewer than 20 employees. Passing the Bill unamended would lead to that position in law. It also leads to the position where more than half of employers in Wales will not be subject to the provisions that we are discussing. That is because more than half of them employ 20 or fewer people. That cannot be right.
The Government have tried to deal with the problem that small companies are sometimes unable to cope with all the responsibilities that are placed upon them and sometimes respond in an incorrect fashion. In some small companies, there may be lack of expertise in all directions.
The results of the survey undertaken by the Employers Forum on Disability reveal that even large companies that do not employ disabled people have a negative attitude towards disabled people. They believe that there are considerable problems in employing them. When a company gets into the habit of employing disabled people, however, whether it is a large or small company, it finds that the problems are massively overstated, and that it is possible to deal with those that arise.
The survey revealed that, at some stage, larger companies will find themselves employing disabled people. When that happens, they start to relate to how that process can be facilitated. They begin to understand how problems can be overcome. Their experience in dealing with one disabled employee will no doubt help them to develop suitable provisions for other disabled people.
It may not be possible to implement the process of facilitation in a small company. The likelihood is, therefore, that a small company that has not employed a disabled person will continue from year to year under the misapprehension that employing such a person causes immense difficulties. Enshrining rights to opt out in law creates a road block to stop us breaking through and encouraging small companies to employ more disabled people, which will lead to a greater willingness to employ them in future.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) talked about the representations that we have received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I was impressed by a case it quoted involving a man from Scotland, who was dismissed after only three days of being appointed an assistant supervisor, despite stating his need for a large print package for his computer. His manager ignored his, the employee's, advice that the PACT team could offer assistance, and that necessary adaptations could be undertaken through access-to-work arrangements. That was an example of ignorance. The likelihood is that smaller companies will have that ignorance.
There may be some circumstances in which small companies will be unable to cope with massive changes that might be needed in extreme cases of disability. That situation is covered by other provisions in the Bill. Such changes would not be regarded under those provisions as reasonable. Required changes would have to fall within what is regarded as reasonable before they could be considered, whether a small or large company was involved.
The same approach should be adopted to companies of all sizes. If necessary, we could apply the test of reasonableness in a slightly different way to companies

that are very small and do not have the resources to do what larger companies might be able to do. It would be better still if the Government could help by providing adequate financial resource where needed.
The opportunity for disabled people to express themselves and develop can he much greater within a small company than a large one. They may get the support they need in a small company. They may find that, in such a company, they are members of a small family of workers, who will bring them on in a way that is not always possible in the less personalised arrangements that exist in large companies.
A plethora of companies employ about 20 people. There are numerous companies of that sort in my constituency. Perhaps they will employ 20, 21 or 22 people this year, and perhaps 17 or 18 next year, or vice versa. In those terms, they will he going backwards and forwards. How can we justify a system in which a disabled person's rights under the law depend on the vagaries of the market and a company's response to them?
I also point out to the Minister the danger of less scrupulous companies. It may not be all that likely in this instance, but if we start to discriminate between companies on the basis of size, in other circumstances it might be tempting for a company to federalise itself or whatever—franchise has been used as an example—to avoid the requirements of the law. It is a bad law that says that there may not be discrimination in companies above a certain size, but that it would be allowed to exist in smaller companies.
I now deal with the attitude towards disabled people. I have a letter from the mother-in-law of someone in Cardiff who had suffered cancer while in the Royal Air Force but made a total recovery. He then tried to find work in civvy street. Despite the fact that he had recovered and had no problems whatever, he is unable to get work because,
in filling application forms, he's been completely truthful and honest and when he's told them all he doesn't even get an acknowledgment of his application. I'm sure you'll agree Mr. Wigley that this is prejudice and discrimination.
That is the point. When someone with a disability applies to a small company for work, there will be the temptation not to give him or her an interview. Without that small company going through the process of meeting a disabled person and giving the interview, it will not be aware of the positive things that disabled workers can give to a company, and will be aware only of the prejudice and the negative aspect that goes with it.
4.15 pm
We are losing an opportunity to break down barriers. If we did away with the clause, we could indeed break down the barriers that that person in Cardiff was experiencing when applying to small companies for work. That is the challenge for the Government. I believe even that, even at this stage, the Government have it within their capability to say, "Yes, perhaps we have got it wrong. Even if we cannot change it on Report, we will look again in the other place to see whether the whole approach can be reconsidered." I hope that the Government will be willing to do that. I believe that the well-being of countless thousands of disabled workers depends on it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who has made a


distinguished speech in this debate, won enormous respect for his constancy in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. That support made it crystal clear long before today that he is opposed to differentiating between firms that employ more or less than 20 employees. That is also the view of nearly all the organisations of and for disabled people.
Did the Government consult before today's debate Sir Peter Large for his view? It was Sir Peter Large whom I appointed, as then Minister in 1979, to chair the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People. That Committee recommended as long ago as 1982 that we should have legislation on the statute book to make it unlawful to discriminate unfairly against disabled people. The Minister must surely agree that Sir Peter Large, who has served so long and with such distinction the Disablement Income Group and, for an even longer period, the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People, is well worth listening to on the subject of this debate.
Has the Minister consulted Rachel Hirst or Richard Wood, of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People? They are in no doubt that it will make bad law to distinguish between firms that employ more and those that employ fewer than that number. Have the Government spoken to Professor Ian Bruce of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, or to Ann Robinson of Scope?
Not only they, but all the representatives of the major disability organisations have said over and over again that it would make discrimination in employment worse to distinguish between employers with fewer than 20 employers and those with more than 20.
We hear that view not only from distinguished representatives of disabled people—those to whom I have referred among many others—but from many employers who are strongly opposed to the drawing of any such distinction. The Employers Forum on Disability, much to its credit, has said that it is wrong. This is our opportunity to correct a part of the Bill that is resented and bitterly criticised throughout the disability world.
There is deep resentment of unfair discrimination in all its forms. There is also resentment about condescension towards disabled people and about patronising attitudes towards them. Is it not patronising to act as though the views of Sir Peter Large, Rachael Hirst, Richard Wood, Ian Bruce, Ann Robinson and other leading representatives of disabled people count for very little? It must be bad government not to listen to people who are experts in any policy area—and who is more expert about the effects of discrimination than those who suffer from it? We could have tackled the problem in 1982 by making discrimination unlawful on the basis of Sir Peter Large's report.
Yet, disturbingly, we are now introducing a very painful sort of new discrimination. The House of Commons accepts that there are groups in society that need protection if they are not to have their problems compounded by unmerited discrimination. If the Bill stays as it is, the House will be drawing a distinction between discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, as compared with discrimination against disabled people. If it is right for people who are black and from the ethnic minorities to have protection regardless of how many people their employer employs, it must be right to protect disabled people irrespective of the number of people a firm employs.
This is our first debate on the Report stage of the Bill. I appeal to Ministers to think carefully about the strong reservations that have been expressed from their side of the House, and to all the compelling points made by my hon. Friends, as well as by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—I regard him as an hon. Friend, too. I am sure that people who are not committed to any particular point of view will accept that their arguments were worthy of support by the House.
Let us start this Report stage in the right way by accepting the proposition that it is wrong and indefensible to distinguish between employers in the way proposed by the Government.

Ms Liz Lynne: I should like to place on record my support for the new clause. Other people outside are beginning to call the Bill the "Disability Discrimination Justification Bill", and for good reasons. One of those reasons is the exemption for small firms. The Bill has more or less become an exemption charter. It is riddled with caveats, qualifications, exemptions and let-out clauses. The exemption for small firms is a stark example of that.
The exemption is wrong for three main reasons. First, there can be no degrees of equality. Someone is either equal or not equal. People are not more equal than others. That is why the small firms exemption is wrong. It is absurd and legally inept to have different rights for people, based only on how many people they work with.
Secondly, at a stroke, the exemption undermines the argument and necessity for the measure. Thirdly, the exemption is superfluous. The Bill's main exemption clause, which includes the words "reasonable accommodation", can cover all the things that the Government are worried about. If a small firm is suffering undue hardship and unreasonable costs, under "reasonable accommodation" it can claim that it is not liable That should meet everyone's concerns.
What evidence is there of those concerns? It is not coming from businesses. For instance, the Employers Forum on Disability supports the removal of the exemption. I agree that it is made up of larger companies, but, as other hon. Members have said, it includes firms like McDonald's, which have franchises. I cannot understand how a firm with such a large amount of money and such large resources can be exempted when it has franchises that employ fewer than 20 people.
Where is the evidence from other countries that the Government keep on putting forward? In the United States of America, thousands and thousands of small businesses and shops are benefiting from the disabled persons legislation that was passed there. One example is a small pizza delivery company employing between 15 and 20 employees in New York. It decided to install a minicom for its deaf customers. Its profits have risen enormously. Another example is an attorney's practice in Houston, again with 15 to 20 employees.
I cannot understand why the Government have gone for 20 and not 15. I would prefer them to go for 15 now, and then to reduce it to none. That is the compromise that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was talking about. I hope that the Government will accept that.
That small attorney's practice installed ramps, lifts, surfaces with bold colours and tactile variations for the blind. The word got around that it was disability-friendly. It had a totally untapped client group who wanted its


services, and its profitability went up. All that happened because of compliance with—not avoidance of—the legislation.
That is the difference between the USA and this country. Before the legislation was enacted there, people were talking about the benefits. They did not talk, about its negative aspects. This Government, however, are concentrating on the negative aspects of compliance with the legislation. The USA talked up how businesses could benefit from the legislation.
The Government offer no incentives. Again, the USA offered incentives to small firms. The only thing that the Government are saying is that small firms can opt out if they have fewer than 20 employees. We want from the Government the positive approach that was taken in the United States, but we are not getting it.
There have even been cases in the United States of small firms employing fewer than 15 people which wanted to opt in because they could see the benefits of doing so. They introduced facilities within their companies to cater for disabled people.
The Bill sends out the wrong signals to people throughout Britain. More important, it sends out the wrong signals to disabled people. I repeat that the exemption is unnecessary. It is covered by the "reasonable accommodation" provision. I certainly hope that the Government will take that point into account. I support the new clause, and I hope that other hon. Members will do likewise.

Mr. Roger Berry: I suspect that this time last year no one would have thought that we would be here debating an exemption for small firms from a Disability Discrimination Bill introduced by the Government: certainly, 12 months ago no one said to me, "Hang on for 12 months and we shall have a Government Bill." No one suggested that the first debate on Report would be on whether small firms should be excluded. We did not expect that the campaign by organisations of and for disabled people such as the Rights Now campaign would be so successful in forcing the Government, first, to publish the consultation document and then to introduce a Bill of their own.
I speak as someone who is bitterly disappointed with most of the content of the Government's Bill. I do not disguise that fact, but there is a measure of success in today's debate—the very fact that the Government now recognise that legislation is required. A mere 12 months ago, they did not believe that we should legislate on discrimination against disabled people in employment or anywhere else. Twelve months ago they were not talking about rights for disabled people at work. Indeed, to talk about the need for rights and to talk the language of legislation to secure equal opportunities was to invite comments that one was obsessed with being politically correct, that one was out to bankrupt the economy or similarly foolish comments.
I have grave reservations about the Government's Bill, especially clause 7, but we must acknowledge the movement that has taken place. Although the principal tribute should be paid to organisations and individuals that

have campaigned for the full civil rights Bill, I acknowledge that many members of the Government and other Conservative Members have consistently supported such legislation.
Yes, there has been movement; yes, the Government now finally talk the language of rights for disabled people; yes, the Government are finally saying that we should legislate to secure those rights; and, yes, there has been a shift. But we find some odd things in the Bill. We are debating the exemption for small firms. Why on earth should firms employing fewer than 20 employees be exempt from the employment provisions of the Bill? I am happy to give way if a Conservative Member would care to intervene and offer some reason for the exemption.
I note that so far in the debate no one has offered a reason why there should be exemptions. We have had a flood of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said that to exempt small firms makes no sense whatever. I am awaiting a speech in which someone will say why there should be an exemption for small firms. I am more than happy to give way at this point if a Conservative Member would care to explain. Clearly, there is not enormous enthusiasm in the Chamber to do so.

Mr. Barnes: Perhaps there is some movement among Conservative Members. Perhaps their silence means that they are going through a process that leads them to realise that there is a point in the arguments that have been advanced in the House. After all, the Government made two adjustments to the Bill in Committee by making it apply to Northern Ireland and to property provisions. They now have a chance to say that there is some sense in the proposals before the House.

Mr. Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out again that the Government have moved their position in relation to discrimination against disabled people. In Committee, there was movement—not a lot, but there was some—and today there may be further movement.

Mr. David Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to consideration of his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in Committee last year? Will he remind me whether that Bill included a restriction on small firms before it was amended?

Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Bill, which I took over from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), included an exemption for small firms. [Interruption.] I have said that the hon. Gentleman was correct, but one of the first things that members of the Committee who supported the Bill did was to propose that there be no such exemption, and I moved that it be deleted. It seemed to the supporters of the Bill—and to most Members present—that there was no reason to exclude small firms.
Small firms are not excluded from the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1986. If they are not excluded from that anti-discrimination legislation, why should they be excluded from legislation that aims to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? Why should disabled people be treated as second-class citizens? Sponsors of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill did not support the exemption for small firms precisely because they believe that disabled people should be treated equally.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Congdon) gives me the opportunity to refer to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Bill now being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) does not exclude small firms for the simple reason that if equal rights in employment are right and proper for women and for black people, they must also be right for disabled people. All organisations of and for disabled people are outraged at the suggestion that disabled people should be treated in a second-class manner in employment.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the purpose of Committee to examine measures and to propose amendments to consider the means by which improvements can be made? Debates in Committee are important, and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was considerably improved by the time it was considered on Report. I picked up the amended measure to promote the current Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and it would be valuable if we could debate its provisions on employment and other matters to see whether polishing and improvement are necessary.

Mr. Berry: Reference has been made on two occasions now to the Committee's discussions of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year. In relation to that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The fact that reference has been made to that Bill does not mean that we should go down that route. The hon. Gentleman should return to the amendment.

Mr. Berry: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the exclusion of small firms were so important, why did not the Government raise that point at any stage in our debates on the employment provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year? We had an extensive discussion on the use of legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment against disabled people, but not once—this is a matter of record and can be checked—did the then Minister express concern that small firms should be exempted.
I do not want to repeat important arguments made last year on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and it would be out of order for me to do so, but there is something strange about the Government now saying that we should exclude small firms from the employment provisions of this Bill when that proposal was not made in Standing Committee last year. I wonder why they are doing so. Could it be because of the outcome of the consultation exercise? One outcome of the Government killing off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year was that they consulted on anti-discrimination legislation and focused on employment.
It is extremely important for us to recall what the Government said about the employment provisions of their plans at the time and to note the responses of those who were consulted. The Government state in paragraph 2.37 of their consultation paper:
The Government proposes that a new right would apply to people who are or would be employees or apprentices and to people who contract personally to provide services. The right would apply to work at establishments in the United Kingdom. This would be consistent with the approach under race and sex discrimination.

The small firms exemption is not consistent with that approach.
In paragraph 2.39, the Government continue:
Research and experience indicate large organisations are more likely to have positive policies for employing disabled people and therefore should experience little difficulty in complying with the new right. Smaller firms could find it disproportionately difficult to consider and implement some of the adjustments that may be required under the new right.
The argument seems to be that we need not worry about large firms because they are doing okay and research shows that they are more likely to have positive policies already—that is what the Government are saying.
The Government's consultation document makes an important point—that one should address legislation to small firms as well as larger firms. Finally, in paragraph 2.41, the Government offer not a firm recommendation but the comment:
Views are sought on the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees in line with the quota scheme.
Most hon. Members will probably agree that the scheme is not a good precedent, so one can leave that comment aside.
The Government were offered views on the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees. Right hon. and hon. Members who have studied the red book, "An Analysis of the Responses"—I always enjoy reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Red Book, but this book has become almost as interesting—will know that table 26 analyses what consultees said. Let us ask ourselves the question, "How many employers felt that it was really important that the Government's Bill excluded smaller firms?" Was it 5,000, 2,000, 500, 100, 50 or five?
One employer in the United Kingdom, when responding to a Government consultation document that asked, "How do you feel about excluding firms with fewer than 20 employees?" said that it did not like it. Most employers did not have much of a view on the subject—one employer amounts to 3 per cent. of those who responded.
If consultation exercises, spending taxpayers' money on such consultation documents and producing responses like that mean anything, how can the Government ignore the very obvious point that only one employer felt that it was necessary—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote from the Red Book and that table, will he tell the House how many employers' organisations supported or opposed the exemption for small firms?

Mr. Berry: I am always happy to assist.

Mr. David Hanson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Berry: I have just given way to the Minister and I will happily give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I should have thought that the Minister might make such points in his speech, but he asked me a factual question and I have no problem in giving him the answer.
In table 26, six employers' associations wanted the exclusion of small firms and three did not—

Mr. Paice: Precisely.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister allow me to finish reading from table 26? In answer to the question, "Should


small firms be excluded?", six employers associations said yes, three said no and 30, the overwhelming majority, had no comment—precisely, Minister.

Mr. Corbett: I am sure that my hon. Friend heard me say that one should not set too much store by these figures, but perhaps he would like to remind the Minister of the fact that the organisations that speak for the majority of employers—the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Employers' Forum on Disability—are all of one mind and believe that there should be no exemption for small firms.

Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is correct. The Confederation of British Industry is on record as stating firmly that there should be no exemption for small firms, as is the Institute of Directors. I have grave reservations about the views of the IOD on disability matters generally, but as my hon. Friend said, it opposes a small firms exemption, as do the Employers Forum on Disability and the Law Society, which represents many small firms, as well as many other employers' organisations.
Since the Minister pressed me, it is a matter of fact that only six, or 15 per cent., of employers' associations supported the small firms exemption and I am grateful to him for enabling me to clarify that.
Reference has been made to the United States and the fact that the Americans with Disabilities Act provides an exemption, which stands at firms employing 15 or fewer people. It has been asked why if 15 is good enough for the United States, should we not accept the same figure. Reference has also been made to the Minister's visit to the United States, and I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members have visited the United States. I was there a fortnight ago and had several meetings with the principal architect of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and many others.
The point that is not made is that, in framing the Americans With Disabilities Act, supporters were trying to ensure similar anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people as that provided under the Civil Rights Act 1964 dealing with discrimination on the grounds of gender and race. The figure 15 is included in title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act for the simple reason that the terms "employer" and "employee" used in title 7 of the Civil Rights Act have been transferred lock, stock and barrel to title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The exclusion from the Americans with Disabilities Act of small firms that employ fewer than 15 workers exists simply because it was in the Civil Rights Act. Disability groups and organisations campaigning for equal rights for disabled people argued for equal treatment.
I see no logic in having a small firms exemption. Labour Members are not totally out of touch with what happens on the other side of the Atlantic. We know that the exemption exists in America because those who drafted the Americans with Disabilities Act were anxious to have the same provisions as existed in their civil rights legislation, which deals with discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, and they urged equal treatment on the American Congress. In opposing any

small firms exemption, I argue for treatment for disabled people that is equal to the treatment provided in our other anti-discrimination legislation—no more and no less.
Unless the Bill is amended, we shall have the ludicrous position whereby small firms cannot legally discriminate on the grounds of race and gender—I am delighted about that—but can on the ground of disability. That lack of equal treatment is fundamentally unacceptable.
Had any Tory Members taken up my invitation to intervene and offer a reason for this provision, they might have said that small firms would experience difficulties with the costs of what the Bill calls "reasonable adjustments"—modifying the workplace to enable disabled people to take up employment opportunities—or what the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill calls "reasonable accommodations". As the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said at the beginning of the debate, clause 6 provides specific protection by deploying the concept of reasonableness.
The Government make it perfectly clear, and I agree with them, that the adjustments required at the workplace to enable disabled people to secure rights at work should be reasonable. They will specify in regulations what is "reasonable", just as they would in the case of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. The hon. Member for Exeter is absolutely correct to say that the concept of "reasonable" in clause 6 provides all the protection for small firms that is necessary.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall experience in the United States that, where "reasonable expenditure"—that was the term used—was undertaken to accommodate the needs of disabled people in their workplace, average costs amounted to $200 and, in 68 per cent. of instances, the total cost was less than $500? That is not an excessive burden on any company.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have with me the latest publication of the Job Accommodation Network in the United States, published by the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, which, includes precisely the figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It says that 68 per cent.—more than two thirds—of all the adjustments and accommodations made under the Americans with Disabilities Act cost less than $500. Our exchange rate fluctuates, but let us assume that that is about £350.
The hon. Member for Exeter quoted the Minister's comments on Second Reading to emphasise the fact that the Minister had stressed that reasonable accommodation costs, in many cases, nothing and, in some cases, very little. Interestingly, the latest analysis of the cost of adjustments made in the United States as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act showed that, in 18 per cent. of cases, no costs were incurred; in 68 per cent. of cases, costs of up to $500 were incurred; in 78 per cent. of cases, costs of up to $1,000 were incurred; in 86 per cent. of cases, costs of up to $2,000 were incurred; and only 5 per cent. of adjustments cost more than $5,000, or £3,000 to £4,000.
The story does not end there. Throughout this debate, not just today but in recent years, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has consistently said


that there are not only costs but benefits. The Job Accommodation Network asked firms what were the benefits of making adjustments. The survey asked
which of the following benefits did your company realise?
These are the latest figures covering the past two years or so of operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 52 per cent. of companies responded "yes" to
Allowed you to hire or retain a qualified employee".
If an employee becomes disabled or suffers an impairment at work, and if the employer provides reasonable adjustments to enable the person to continue to work, the employer saves money on retraining and redundancy costs and retains a skilled worker. In answer to that first question in the survey, the majority of employers said that there were significant benefits in retaining a disabled person.
The benefits that employers typically mention, in addition to retaining qualified employees, are: saving on cost of training a new employee; saving on workers' compensation and other insurance costs and saving as a result of increasing the workers' productivity. Employers in the United States are now asked to put a dollar value on the benefits of providing reasonable accommodation or making reasonable adjustments.
I have the document before me and can make it available to the Minister, but his civil servants have frequently visited Washington and I am sure that it is already available to him. He will know that the current estimates of the Job Accommodation Network are that for every dollar spent on providing reasonable accommodation for disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers save $27; employers receive $27-worth of benefits. Before people go running away with the idea that providing reasonable accommodation only incurs costs and never confers benefits, they should take on board the evidence from the United States, which shows explicitly that costs are often very modest and benefits are often substantial.

Mr. Barnes: The example of Macdonalds in Britain has already been given. The Bill, inadequate though it may be, will apply to Macdonalds, which because of its provision of goods and services, will incur some costs. The costs, however, will be outweighed by the returns that my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Bill applies to companies in other matters, so why should we not say to Macdonalds that its employees should be provided with access to work? That extra cost, if any, would be very marginal.

5 pm

Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been partly surprised and partly angry about debates on the cost of legislation in recent months. The compliance cost assessment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was simply fraudulent. More significantly, people have always looked at the costs and have ignored the benefits. To the best of my knowledge, the Government have not yet offered any estimate of the benefits of anti-discrimination legislation on, for example, employment. I would be happy to give way if any hon. Member would like to offer advice on the issue.
Indeed, a compliance cost assessment of the Government's Bill has been made but, to the best of my knowledge, no estimate has been made of its benefits. Nobody would produce a budget without looking at the

benefits as well as the costs—not if they were producing it seriously. No employer would consider expenditure without looking at the benefit that that expenditure may confer. No economist would dream of looking at costs and excluding benefits.
It is extraordinary that we still face the ridiculous situation in which Conservative Members—if one eventually contributes to the debate—tell us that small firms have to be excluded because of the costs that the legislation would impose. I suspect that, yet again, there will be no acknowledgement of the importance of benefits. Why, I ask myself, have no estimates of benefits been prepared by the Government? Why has the Department of Employment confined itself simply to looking at the costs of anti-discrimination legislation and not its potential benefits?
It is absurd. We live in a society in which we happily throw away £30 billion keeping people out of work, instead of investing that money in jobs, which explains our culture. We never look at the benefits of creating employment; we only ever look at ways of trying to deny people jobs. It cannot be overstated that, if the Government were serious about this matter, they would be considering the benefits involved.
The small firms exclusion is supported not only on the grounds of the costs of adjustments implied by the Bill but it is also sometimes said that small firms cannot respond to complaints. The idea is that, even if somebody's complaint about discrimination was unfounded, the firm would have to make some response and, in extremis, it might end up at an industrial tribunal. It is sometimes argued—I am doing my best to try to identify arguments that others should be putting—that the very fact that complaints may be made imposes a burden on the small firm because it would have to respond to those complaints.
Under anti-discrimination legislation that seeks to deal with gender and race discrimination, we do not worry about the possibility of complaints. We do not say that small firms should not have to deal with complaints on the grounds of gender or racial discrimination, so why on earth should we use that excuse for disability? We do not exempt small firms from having to deal with a whole range of requirements, such as health and safety, building regulations and so on, so why should we select this area of discrimination for special concern?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, a properly staffed and resourced commission with powers to investigate complaints—such as the commission in the United States—could deal with frivolous complaints quickly and protect small firms or, indeed, any large firm. It would be extraordinary to argue that small firms should be excluded from employment provisions because even though they are able to deal with complaints of discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, they cannot deal with complaints of discrimination on the grounds on disability.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am faced with an interesting situation. I have been inviting Conservative Members to speak. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East made an important point, with which I dealt and agreed. There was no dispute between us and, as a long-standing supporter of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the hon. Gentleman knows that what I say is exactly correct. I have been trying to identify arguments that Conservative Members would deploy in support of


the small firms exemption should they be minded to do so, but I have noted that, so far, not a single Conservative Member has been minded so to do. I have not heard any other arguments in favour of the small firms exclusion. I honestly believe that, briefly, I have dealt with the usual arguments that are deployed. I think that, equally briefly, I have pointed out that the arguments that are occasionally deployed in favour of a small firms exclusion are totally without foundation.
I have also pointed out—I hope that it is taken on board by the Minister—that those who have responded to the Government's invitation to comment on proposals have not been jumping up and down and saying, "Please can we exclude small firms?" Only employer one wanted a small firms exclusion and only 15 per cent. of employers' associations wanted it. The clear majority of firms do not want such an exclusion or, frankly, do not care one way or the other.
I very much hope that the Government have listened to the consultees who responded to the White Paper in the summer, I hope that they have listened to the debate on Second Reading, in Committee and again here today and I hope that they will acknowledge that equity demands that employment provisions should be essentially the same as those in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. There is no small firms exclusion in those Acts and there should not be in this Bill.
The Bill's employment provisions would be unacceptable if a small firms exclusion were to be retained. Will the Government please indicate as quickly as possible that they are convinced by those arguments, will show further movement on the issue and will recognise what disabled people have a right to demand—no small firms exclusion?

Mr. David Congdon: I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). He put his case well—I hope that that comment does not undermine his position in any way—and he was right to praise the Government for their response to the difficulties that he encountered last year when he introduced the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I did not think then that I would be speaking on Report on a Government Bill on disability discrimination, and I should like to thank the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for all he has done to enable us to reach this stage.
It is partly for that reason that I do not want to be difficult about part II of the Bill. That is also why I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Kingswood, because I genuinely could not remember exactly how we started out, many months ago, when we first discussed exemptions. Having asked that question, I now remember which way round the debate went in Committee.
To begin with, the Bill contained an exemption for small businesses. I was relatively happy about that because I think that certain aspects of small businesses are different from those of larger ones. I accept, of course, that we could debate the extent to which those differences are significant and the extent to which the Bill should take account of them.
I now recall, having had my memory jogged, that an amendment was moved early on in Committee to remove that exemption. I had some difficulty with that, because I

was ambivalent about its removal. I am still somewhat ambivalent about that amendment to the Bill. I accept the logic of the argument that all firms should be included in the legislation, but it is important to consider carefully the needs of small businesses.
I would therefore like my hon. Friend the Minister to spell out in detail exactly why the Government believe that small firms should be granted an exemption. In particular, I should like to know why that decision was reached when, as the hon. Member for Kingswood has pointed out, businesses were hardly unanimous in opposition to their inclusion in the Bill. That is an important point to consider.
I noted Ministers' arguments that small firms should be excluded because they are not equipped to deal with complaints because they do not have personnel departments. I previously worked for a large company, and I am not sure about the truth of that argument. Large companies may have the apparatus and resources to deal with complaints, but that machinery is sometimes overly bureaucratic, and it can take a long time for a complaint to be dealt with.
At the other end of the spectrum, I am conscious that firms employing one or three employees do not have the resources to deal with any complaints. One can therefore construct an argument—I would not wish to push it too far—that an employee limit should be set at which certain firms should be exempt from the Bill. I am not suggesting that firms employing 20 employees should be exempt, but I certainly accept that certain circumstances should be taken into account when considering firms that employ one man, two men or two women and a dog.
The reasonableness test could counter that argument, because it is important to apply that test to any aspect of legislation. I accept that the Bill does that, but the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends and I, and other hon. Members, was designed to achieve even more than that provided by the routine reasonableness test in the Bill. It recognises that, notwithstanding that test, the Bill should be extended a bit further in relation to smaller firms. It would give the Secretary of State the power to specify what would be reasonable conduct by those firms. I should like the Minister to explain specifically why he feels unable to accept the new clause.
The new clause is important, because it was designed to try to break through the log jam that had been created by the argument that because small firms are different, they should therefore be exempt from the Bill. People recognise, however, that any cut-off is arbitrary. Some people have argued for a lower employee limit, but, as a compromise, I believe that small firms, especially those with just one, two or three employees, should be treated a little differently in recognition of their special circumstances. I hope that the Minister will consider that option.
I am pleased that Government amendment No. 122 removes any ambiguity about whether the exemption limit could be raised upwards. I know that assurances on that have been given before, but it is important to be unambiguous and to make it clear that the only change to the limit would be downwards.
5.15 pm
If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 6, I urge him to give serious consideration to whether a commitment should be made as soon as possible—in the


House or elsewhere—to lower the employee limit from 20. The danger is that the existing limit will be considered as set in tablets of stone. If my hon. Friend is wrong and we find that, in the light of experience, the Bill, once enacted, does not cause any particular problems for firms employing between 20 and 25 people, but causes problems to disabled people who want to work for firms employing between 15 and 20 people or 10 and 20 people, the limit should be lowered. That change would be based on practice rather than theory.
Surely the ultimate goal must be to ensure that all firms treat disabled people fairly when they seek employment. We may argue about the pace of change, but the goal must be to ensure that no employee, disabled or otherwise, is discriminated against when seeking employment.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I must first thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving instructions to pull the shades down against the glare of the sun.
I have some sympathy for what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said about companies which employ two or three people—be they one man, two women and a dog, or whatever. I accept that such firms may encounter difficulties in some circumstances.
New clause 16, which is grouped with new clause 6, is designed to end discrimination relating to all firms, large or small. We have a long history of Administrations who have sought to provide legislative exemptions for small firms. Today's debate reminds me of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which sought to introduce labour law directly into industrial relations. That Act also provided an exemption for small firms. I thought that that was a mistake, just as I think that clause 7 is a dreadful mistake on the present Government's part.
The 1971 Act had some good parts to it, because it introduced disciplinary and grievance procedures, but those procedures should have been made available to those working in small firms as well. Similarly, it is utterly wrong to discriminate against employees of small firms.
As for employment opportunities for disabled citizens in small firms, medium or large ones, I am confident that the experience I have gained in my constituency is no different from that gained by other right hon. and hon. Members. Some of my local firms, large and small, have an excellent record on employing people with disabilities. One that always comes to mind is Lithgow Electronics, which, given its total work force, employs a large number of disabled people. Those people with disabilities are treated in exactly the same way as those fortunate enough not to suffer from disabilities. That company in my constituency provides us with a remarkable and heart-warming record in that regard.
There are also smaller companies in Inverclyde which are only too anxious to provide good terms of employment for their employees with disabilities. It is likely that such firms—whether in Inverclyde, elsewhere in Scotland, south of the border or in Northern Ireland—do not require the type of regulations that would be imposed of new clause 16 were introduced into the Bill.
However, in Inverclyde and elsewhere in Scotland, there are small firms and large firms which have an extremely poor record regarding the employment of people with disabilities. New clause 16 would provide

many people with employment opportunities that are denied them now—with reasonable pay and good conditions of employment which do not treat people with disabilities as second-class employees, as has all too often been the case.
I appreciate that there may be some difficulties with new clause 16 for small companies, but they need only consider other small companies in their region with excellent industrial relations records to dispel some of their anxieties about the external checks and restraints which would be brought into small companies to defend the needs and interests of employees with disabilities.
Such employers need to he guided and, if possible, helped financially, to recruit, train and employ disabled people. It is important that those external checks and balances are introduced to defend the interests of employees of small companies because it can be exceedingly difficult for such employees in small firms to draw attention to their grievance if they believe that they are being unfairly treated by the employer. It is better that employees in those circumstances should be protected by what I have called elsewhere "external checks and balances" on the discrimination exercised by employers.
Small companies employing fewer than 20 people have little or no experience of trade union involvement and trade union representation of employees, so it is important that we introduce other measures by which such employees' interests may be defended.
If costs are an issue, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East seems to suggest, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said earlier: that issue can be considered in terms of the costs and benefits to employers of taking on people with disabilities. If there are problems of costs in respect of people with learning disabilities, cannot the Government and the European Union provide financial assistance to implement training programmes and introduce modifications to a company's premises and equipment?
Over the years, research has shown that people with learning disabilities can carry out many of the functions in a company which are performed by others with no disabilities. Given the right training, they can acquire a range of occupational skills. Such training may be more extensive than that needed to bring other employees to a defined benchmark, but, with the right training and with the right modifications to plant and equipment, it can be achieved. I wonder whether the Minister has taken advice about whether help can be obtained by such small firms by way of European structural funds.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the atmosphere of a small firm rather than a larger one often more suitable for a person with learning difficulties? A small group of people who link and work together, as one hopes happens in the best small firms, creates that important atmosphere. The small firm would seem especially appropriate for people with learning difficulties rather than the larger, perhaps more impersonal firm, which might be more difficult to handle. The assistance to which my hon. Friend refers is therefore justified.

Dr. Godman: That is an important argument. In small firms, others people can guide the person with disabilities, acting as protectors and mentors. The same may also happen in large firms in which relatively small teams of employees work together. Research has shown that it is not difficult to introduce a person who is physically


impaired into such a team. However, my hon. Friend makes the important point that, in a small firm, other employees will willingly, indeed happily, look after someone with disabilities.
We all know that, when a person leaves the social security system for full-time employment, the person and their family benefit immediately and there is a self-evident benefit to the state. There are other benefits, too. When people with disabilities are employed in small or large firms, there is the psychological benefit of finding full-time employment; an immediate boost is given to a person's self-esteem. A person knows that he or she is part of the community in a much more comprehensive and more rounded way when in full-time employment.
We should not lose sight of the fact that there are benefits to an employer in taking on someone who has found it immensely difficult to find work in the past. Often people who are handicapped in one way or another become loyal, hard-working employees. Some employers do not deserve that type of loyalty, but that is another matter. In terms of costs and benefits, therefore, a small firm can indeed benefit from taking on people with learning difficulties or people who are physically impaired.
I visited a company in my constituency recently and spoke to a person who is physically handicapped, who has been confined for much of his life to a wheelchair. He said that, even though the terms and conditions of employment were not so good in that company—and by God, they are not, in comparison with those offered by many other local employers—the fact that he was in employment for the first time in about 15 years gave him enormous self-respect and lifted the burden from his family of having to care for someone who, I think, had been psychologically bruised by his constant rejections by local firms when seeking employment.
Now here he is, earning what I regard as a poor wage, but nevertheless he is out every morning, going to his job, he is highly regarded by his workmates and he is delighted to be in work. I believe that that example could be multiplied many thousands of times.
The small firms sector—which is very important in the west of Scotland and elsewhere—has a role to play. Some small firms in my constituency would not require the regulations that implementation of new clause 16 would impose, but I believe that others would need such regulations because they would seek to exploit disabled employees who were not members of a trade union.
I believe that the Government should certainly accept, if not new clause 16, then new clause 6, in order to defend rightly and properly the interests of those who are often unable to defend themselves. Disabled employees often do not have trade union representation and therefore cannot avail themselves of a formal collective bargaining system. The Government must accept that firms which employ fewer than 20 people should not be able to dodge the external checks and balances which protect the interests of those who, in many instances, are unable to defend themselves.

Mr. Hanson: It has been a quite marvellous experience this afternoon. We have debated for some two hours the

new clauses standing in the names of my hon. Friends, and hardly any voices have been raised against them. The hon. Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) have joined the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and many of my hon. Friends in supporting amendments to the legislation that will ensure an end to discrimination in employment against disabled people.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that I support new clause 16, which would remove the 20-employee limit and would assist firms with the undoubted difficulties that they may face in some circumstances. I attended Committee sittings for several weeks. To be honest, at the beginning of the Committee process I did not think that the Government would accept any amendments from the Labour party during consideration of the Disability Discrimination Bill. As it happens, the Government did not accept any amendments from the Labour party during consideration of the Bill, so perhaps I was justified in feeling jaundiced.
However, I came out of the Committee sittings feeling better than when I went in. I think that—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), will prove it in his winding-up speech—the Under-Secretary and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People impressed all members of the Committee with their sense of fairness. I genuinely believe that they wish to end discrimination against disabled people, and tonight they will have the opportunity to do just that.
The Bill will not end discrimination against disabled people in employment. There is the potential for disabled people to be discriminated against if they work for firms that employ fewer than 20 individuals. That will create a two-tier source of discrimination, which flies in the face of the aims of all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and of everyone who has responded, and who intends to respond, to the legislation as it progresses through the House.
The Bill's provisions are illogical. If I were the managing director of a firm that employed 21 people, I could not discriminate against disabled people on the ground of their disability. However, if I were the managing director of a company that employed 19 people, I could discriminate on that basis. Where is the logic in that?
Conservative Back Benchers who wish to speak in the debate may allude to the cost associated with employing disabled people. If I am the managing director of a company that employs 21 individuals, I must bear the cost associated with their employment. However, if my company employs 19 individuals, I can discriminate and choose not to bear that cost. We could dispute—as we have done today—whether there is a cost to be borne, but, if there is, the situation is totally illogical.
If there is a cost associated with employing disabled people—we would dispute that claim—why should a highly profitable company that employs 10 people discriminate against disabled people, when perhaps a company that does not make a profit but employs 25 people cannot? There is no logic in the Government's position to date.
If Government Members were to say that they proposed to amend the race relations legislation to include an exemption for small firms, that might justify the


Government's position in this instance. If Government Members were to say that they intended to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1976 to include an exemption for small firms, there might be some justification for the Government's current position. However, the Government will not do that. Under the Government's legislation, it will be legal to discriminate against disabled people if a company employs fewer than 20 people, although it is not able to discriminate on the basis of race or sex.
According to the current legislation, it will be legal for hon. Members to discriminate against those disabled people who might apply to work for them. We would not wish to sanction that sort of situation, but there could not be one law for those outside the House and another for hon. Members.
The Government's position takes no account of that well-known expression "downsizing". Many companies in my constituency have downsized considerably—notably, the steelworks at Shotton, which has downsized from 20,000 to 1,000 employees under a Tory Government. Some companies will employ fewer than 20 people for part of the year and more than that number at another time. According to the Government's current proposal, some companies will be able to discriminate against disabled people in January, but not in February, or perhaps in March, but not in April. There is no logic to that position. It is a person's right not to be discriminated against, and that inalienable right should be protected in every circumstance.
The small firms sector, which we have been examining in detail today, accounts for one in six workers in the United Kingdom. That figure is far higher in rural areas. Both Ministers represent, as I do in part, rural areas. The hon. Member for Caernarfon and I represent constituencies in Wales. Wales comprises large rural areas where most people are employed by firms with fewer than 20 employees. Therefore, many disabled people in Wales face potential discrimination in their place of employment.
The Bill will ensure that disabled people will not be able to apply for jobs in large areas of my constituency without the fear of discrimination. In the agriculture sector, a small, rurally based business may be the sole employer. Large firms may not be appropriate in that area.
My constituency covers a large part of the north Wales coast. The holiday resort of Prestatyn is in my constituency and it attracts many thousands of visitors each summer—I hope that many hon. Members will visit it this summer. Businesses in Prestatyn face the same difficulty as many others in rural and coastal areas of Wales: they have temporary and seasonal employment. Companies may employ fewer than 20 people for part of the year and at other times more than that number. As a consequence of the legislation, different laws will apply to the same companies depending on the time of year and on how many people choose to visit Prestatyn for their summer holidays. They cannot plan.
The Bill will impose burdens that my hon. Friends' measures would remove. Eighty-four per cent. of firms in Northern Ireland have fewer than 10 employees, so it is reasonable to assume that 90 per cent. of them have fewer than 20 employees. How will a disabled person be free from fear of discrimination when the Bill will make it legal to discriminate in 90 per cent. of cases in Northern

Ireland? Small businesses are a fast-growing sector of the economy and we must encourage them. At the same time, we must ensure fairness and justice across the board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) made great play of the various representations made. Only one company wrote in favour of the exemption and only six employer associations did so—hardly an avalanche. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, the consultation document may not be fulsome and detailed, but it shows strength of feeling. Individuals usually tell the Government when they are fearful of something, but they have not done so in this case. That has not been done either by the Confederation of British Industry, the Employers Forum on Disability or the Institute of Directors—God bless it. The institute stated:
if the Government believe that disabled people should have the right, it should apply equally to all employees.
What a marvellous organisation—and I never thought that I would say that. One down and a few more to go.
I never fail to be surprised by the strength of feeling evident among organisations in my constituency when they suspect that the House is acting against their interests. Licensed victuallers, newsagents and other small shopkeepers, chambers of commerce, chambers of trade and others are all employers or represent them and they often bang on my door about urgent issues—but they have not done so over the need for exemption. The Law Society and other organisations had the opportunity to make representations to hon. Members but did not do so.
I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's justification for retaining the exemption and legalising discrimination against disabled people in companies with fewer than 20 employees. The new clauses and the amendment will not bring any onslaught against small businesses. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
The Government are trying to strike a balance between the desire to eliminate discrimination and the desire to ensure that over-burdensome regulations that might jeopardise small businesses' primary functions are not put on them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 February 1995; c. 252.]
Are the Government really worried about imposing burdensome regulations on small businesses? If the Under-Secretary is concerned, perhaps he will tell the House what would be the cost to small businesses if the exemption were lifted. How many small firms would go out of business? How many people would be made unemployed? What burden would be imposed in this instance that does not exist in respect of race relations or sex equality legislation?
I hope that the Government will be positive, end the exemption and give small businesses help from the Employment Service and other organisations in respect of good practice, to assist them to meet their obligations under the Bill as amended by the proposed measures. Scope, for which I worked for eight years prior to entering the House, suggested that a personnel pack should be produced, to inform firms how to comply. It could illustrate good and bad practices, provide information and give practical support.
Would it not be more positive for the House to abolish the exemption, say that it believes in ending discrimination in employment and acknowledge the value of a programme of help for small firms—rather than to allow companies to evade their responsibilities and to make disabled people face discrimination in their daily


lives? I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond positively, and I look forward to his acceptance of the measures.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) mentioned the employment problems confronting disabled people living in rural areas. Several organisations pointed out that the 20-employee limit will dramatically affect such people. In Committee, the Under-Secretary responded to my questions about the difficulties confronting would-be disabled workers in agricultural areas, which may be more graphic than those facing disabled people in urban areas.
I must not touch on other clauses, but I shall place that matter in context. The much lower density of population in rural areas leads to greater isolation, less access to disabled groups and support groups of all kinds, and more remoteness from usually concentrated local authority services. The decimation of public transport in recent years also makes it harder for disabled people in rural areas to seek work. Their choice of school or college is limited by travelling distances and the lower density of such institutions. The Bill does not address any of those problems.
Changes in the nature of agricultural employment and practices have already massively reduced the number of people working in that industry. Most farms are little more than family employers. The encouragement of diversification in the countryside has introduced small firms, most of which have fewer than 20 employees.
The Bill will exclude most disabled people living in rural areas from the right to challenge discrimination in employment. We have no reason to suppose that a smaller proportion of rural residents than urban dwellers are disabled. In fact, given the dangerous nature of agricultural work, with tractor and machinery accidents, chemical accidents with substances such as organophosphates and the danger of using pesticides in greenhouses, it may be that country areas have a higher proportion of disabled people. Certainly the figure will be no lower.
The chief employment characteristic in horticulture is its seasonal nature, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn referred in respect of seaside resorts such as Prestatyn—or, in Lancashire, those of Blackpool, Morecambe and Southport, which purports to be in Lancashire. Incidentally, Blackpool has the worst unemployment rate in Lancashire.
Such areas are also characterised by large numbers of part-time workers. In Committee, the Under-Secretary helpfully told us that the Bill made no distinction between part-time and full-time workers. That is to be welcomed. He also said that it would be the time when discrimination occurred that mattered, in terms of a challenge to a tribunal, not the time when an accumulation of incidents of discrimination provoked a disabled employee into making a challenge. That comment, too, was helpful and clarifying.
I am still very worried, however, about the practical oddities that will be created by the figure of 20. They were mentioned by the hon. Members for

Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The latter pointed out that a business may employ more than 20 employees one year, but fewer employees the next. That sort of thing could happen quite often. Even more important, some firms change the number of their employees month by month, or even week by week. In horticulture, probably the largest source of employment in most of my constituency, for much of the year an employer will have only a handful of workers—four, five or six—but for several months of the year he will have well over 20, and perhaps as many as 60.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that for half the year the employees will be covered by the Bill's discrimination provisions, but for the other half they will not; that, of course, includes any disabled person who happens to be one of the core of permanent employees. For half the year, a disabled person will have the right to challenge discrimination—not so for the other half.
This is an immensely difficult situation for employer and employee alike, and it lends itself to possible abuse by bad employers. I do not want to exaggerate, but there will be employers who use these circumstances to get around the Act.
Where would the criterion of reasonableness come into all this? Ironically, many occupations in horticulture lend themselves to workers with, say, mobility difficulties. Many groups from the horticultural industry, recently giving evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture, strongly asked the Government to allow more foreign students into the United Kingdom to take up the extra work during the summer. That clearly shows the seasonal need for workers; at least some of the jobs could be taken up by disabled people living near the horticultural enterprises.
Every means of persuasion to get rural employers to engage disabled people who can do the jobs, and to treat them equally once they are in work, should be adopted—but the Bill does not set the requisite framework for that. The application of the rights of disabled people in firms with more than 20 employees to smaller employers would serve as a backstop in the process.
Obviously there are difficulties and imponderables that need sorting out. The CBI documents make some intelligent references to that fact, but a clear benchmark in law, coupled with help and guidance for small employers, could make an enormous difference to a significant number of disabled people in rural areas.
The Under-Secretary must also explain how he hopes to deal with the franchising problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Exeter, and with contracting out. The splintering of large firms into smaller firms, using these methods, may already be a way of getting around the legislation, and it will prove even handier for the purpose in future.
Areas such as mine face other problems, too. The town of Skelmersdale has been badly clobbered by two recessions in the past two decades. Agencies of all kinds—for instance, Lancashire Enterprises—have scurried to put up small industrial units, which usually can accommodate only between four and 10 workers. Hopes for the future of the town lie very much with these small firms, which occupy an ever greater part of its economy. It is quite possible that the exclusion of small firms under the 20 employees proposal will effectively exclude disabled people in Skelmersdale from the town's economic future, which the small firms are trying to build.
I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary might object to this group of amendments. I candidly admit that they are not measures that I would have chosen to table. New clause 6 states:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers"—
"have regard" is rather woolly—
and to take such practical steps as he deems appropriate".
Again, it states:
The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying the circumstances under which adjustments may be considered reasonable for employers".
The new clause is full of conditionals, qualifiers, maybes and perhapses. New clause 16(3) is in the same vein:
Regulations under this section may make different provisions for different circumstances and different sizes of employer and specify different periods within which different adjustments shall be made; and regulations made under this section may be varied by subsequent regulations.
What could be more accommodating than that wonderful sentence for any Minister wanting to please everyone and get away with murder?

Mr. Paice: I begin by dealing with an issue not directly related to the Bill but mentioned by at least two hon. Members—Remploy. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) will know that clause 7, to which the new clauses relate, does not directly concern Remploy; but the decision to end the priority supplier scheme was taken only because of clear legal advice, since endorsed by the European Commission, that it contravened European legislation. The amount of £147,500 which the hon. Gentleman quoted is not a UK-derived figure; it is a European figure, and the figure put into the new special contracts arrangements reflects that.
Remploy is facing competitive pressures, especially in textiles. I do not think that it expects to win every contract for which it bids, but it is competing hard for MOD contracts, and we hope that it will win some. In the meantime, it is doing everything it can to diversify into the commercial retail clothing sector, where perhaps it will find greater scope.
Several Members referred to the benefits of employing disabled people. I hope that those who served on the Committee with me will take my word for it that I entirely recognise that disabled people have a vast amount of skill and expertise to offer the businesses which employ them now and which will, we hope, employ them in the future. Over the past few months, I have been excited by the number of places where I have seen disabled people working and fulfilling a useful role for themselves and their employer. Let no one be in any doubt that we recognise the benefits that derive from their employment.
6 pm
There are positive advantages for businesses in employing disabled people. Ultimately, we want employers to be willing to employ disabled people without any thought of legislation, and without knowing that they might have to employ them because otherwise they will be taken to a tribunal. We want employers to employ the disabled because they want to employ them, because they believe that they have something considerable to offer to their business.
If that is our long-term objective, I suggest that legislation must be couched in a way that has the support of employers, not their resistance. If their first approach is cynicism—doubts and resistance to legislation—the battle to change their hearts and minds and consequent behaviour will be that much harder.
Successive Governments have recognised that small businesses need special help to survive and prosper as well as protection from over-burdensome regulation. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said during the debate that small-scale employers do not necessarily have specialist staff easily available to them, staff who have knowledge of the more detailed aspects of employment law.
That was recognised by the Labour Government, who introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The approach of race and gender legislation is different, of course, from that of the Bill. The 1975 Act introduced a small-firm threshold of five. In recognition of the unique difficulties of small firms—for example, the extra costs of providing separate washing facilities and cloakrooms—the threshold had to be abolished through an EC ruling. The Labour Government's objective was notable, however.
The threshold was provided for in a relatively straightforward piece of anti-discrimination legislation to eliminate employment discrimination on the ground of sex. There are no ifs, buts or degrees. We all know that people are men or women. I understand that one or two have doubts about where they stand, but the majority know clearly where they are. Everyone understands that.
The Bill is far more complex than previous legislation. We have heard the argument that reasonable adjustment would cover the difficulties faced by small firms. I do not agree. I am not convinced that that is so. The small-scale employer, who is usually the owner of the business, will have many issues on his mind. It is unrealistic to expect him or her to know what might or might not be reasonable, to take advice or to follow case law as it develops, especially in the early years of an Act's implementation.
Recruitment of new staff in small businesses is often a rare event or infrequent. That means that employers of small businesses will be unable to learn quickly from experience. I suggest that the recruitment of new or extra staff would be even less frequent if small-scale employers had to spend ages before making each appointment genning themselves up on the latest employment legislation.
The point is amplified by the fact that such businesses have not hitherto had to deal with disability legislation. As we all know, small firms have been exempt from the quota legislation for about 50 years. It is a fact that, for those 50-odd years, no Government have attempted to change the threshold. Accordingly, the figure of 20 has not been plucked from the air. It reflects precisely current legislation.
Inevitably, new anti-discrimination legislation takes time to settle down. Practice needs to be established, and case law has to be developed from tribunal deliberations. It will be burden enough on large firms that have resources sufficient to enable them to cope. It will be


much more difficult for small businesses without specialist knowledge to keep up with what is happening in the early years of implementation.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister is suggesting that, as time goes on and experience is garnered, it might become easier and more acceptable for small companies to live with either a lower threshold or to be brought in, as it were. Government amendment No. 122, which we are considering with the new clause, refers to
'a different number (not greater than 20) for the number for the time being specified there."'
Will the Minister confirm that the number could be zero, and that that would be within the purview of the proposed legislation?

Mr. Paice: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. I shall talk about the amendment to which he has referred in my later remarks.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have referred to the apparent lack of support from employers' organisations and other bodies for the exemption for small businesses that we propose. It is a novel event to hear Opposition Members—I think they had difficulty in swallowing it—putting forward the views of the Institute of Directors. I am glad, however, that they have recognised that the institute is usually worthy of note.
The hon. Member for Erdington referred to the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry as representing the top 100 companies.

Mr. Corbett: I did not.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not.

Mr. Corbett: I referred to the forum.

Mr. Paice: All right, the Employers Forum on Disability.
Even so, the CBI, the institute and the forum are not renowned for representing businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Probably very few of the businesses they represent have fewer than 200 employees. They are not speaking on behalf of small businesses.
By contrast, the Federation of Small Businesses speaks specifically on behalf of small businesses. It has issued a statement, which reads:
The Federation is particularly concerned with any amendments aimed at bringing all employers, irrespective of size, within the remit of the legislation.
It urges Members to
vote for the retention of the exemption rule for small employers with under 20 workers. Adding further burdens to this wealth-creating sector of the economy will seriously damage its potential for job creation.
Those are the views of an organisation that clearly represents small businesses.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister address the point about the artificiality of selecting the number 20? He as a Member represents employers with fewer than 20 employers and employers with more than 20. He is a great expert on horse racing. As the House knows, there are in the Newmarket part of his constituency people in that industry who employ fewer than 20, and others who

employ more. Why create this fundamental difference, as it seems to many, between employers in the same industry?

Mr. Paice: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whose commitment to the cause of the disabled is renowned, I do not think that he was in the Chamber a few moments ago when I specifically said that we have opted for 20 because that reflects the quota legislation. That was why we chose 20.
I shall continue with the thoughts of outside organisations. In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I shall read the comments of two organisations. One writes:
The cost of adjustment could fall disproportionately upon smaller firms, especially in the early years of new legislation, before suitable premises and equipment become more generally available.
The second quote reads:
Small businesses face particular difficulties in interpreting guidance and advice from central and local government. They seldom have the personnel expertise available to a larger company, and each decision as to whether to introduce modifications to work practices or the premises must be weighed carefully against the impact on company viability.
There is ample evidence that some organisations that represent small businesses clearly recognise the problems that small businesses face.

Mr. Berry: rose—

Mr. Paice: I shall give way once more, but then I must press on.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister acknowledge that small firms made similar comments about the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act? Will he please acknowledge that the lack of a personnel department in a small firm is as much a problem in abiding by those Acts as it would be in this case? Why on earth should disabled people yet again be treated as second-class citizens?

Mr. Paice: No. I would contend, as I tried to earlier, that it is not the same to compare directly the gender and race legislation with the proposed legislation, because of the complexity. The other pieces of legislation do not contain the concept of reasonable adjustment. They are much more simple, straightforward pieces of legislation, and are much easier for a small business man to grasp than the implications of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Wigley: What about the tax legislation?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), for whom I have immense respect from our long acquaintance with each other, says from a sedentary position, sotto voce, "What about the tax legislation?" to which the hon. Member for Erdington also referred. There are special arrangements for tax legislation—the VAT threshold, for example. [Interruption.] There is no exemption from tax. Perhaps many wish that they were exempt. The lower rate of income tax and VAT clearly recognises that small businesses deserve special judgment.
Having said everything that I have, I want to stress to the House, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who moved the new clause, that of course we do not want small firms to discriminate against disabled people—any more than we want large


firms to discriminate against them. Many small firms do employ disabled people. I can assure the House, as I have before, that we will encourage them to follow the new code of practice. To that end, they will be consulted in drawing up the code.
We have always emphasised that there are benefits in employing disabled people. We have always said that it is in an employer's interest to have access to the widest possible pool of talent, but we do not believe that it is possible to produce an accurate estimate of those benefits. So when the hon. Member for Kingswood challenged me on why we do not put the benefits on the equation, it is simply because we have not been able to find a way of financially measuring the benefits. We recognise that they are there and, as I have already said, we see considerable benefits in employing disabled people.
Several hon. Members referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act and its exemption for small firms. The figure was originally 25 when the Act was introduced, but it was subsequently reduced to 15. Unlike our Bill, that figure of 15 cannot be lowered further. Our Bill brings in the flexibility.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who referred to a pizza parlour—I assume that it was a small employer—and to the fact that it would need to install a minicom and so on for customers, saying what a wonderful company it was and how much new business it had gained. That is precisely what we propose in part III of the Bill—the goods, facilities and services aspect. She did not address a single comment on the pizza parlour as an employer, but spoke of the service that it was providing its customers. I can wholeheartedly go along with everything she said about the benefits to a businesses of being seen to welcome disabled people as customers.
Small firms are also eligible for help from the Employment Service and from our specialist advisers, as well, we hope, as becoming users of the disability symbol "Positive About Disabled People". Already, some 10 per cent. of symbol users are firms employing 24 or fewer employees.
6.15 pm
Much has been said this afternoon about figures. The hon. Member for Kingswood, of course, paraded his use of figures from the Red Book, of which he showed himself a master—at least of how to read it, if not how to interpret the figures—when the Bill was being considered in Committee.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Paice: Of course, I will happily give way.

Mr. Berry: Can the Minister give one example of where I have misinterpreted the figures in the Red Book? Just one example.

Mr. Paice: I was just about to do that.
The hon. Gentleman again paraded the fact that the majority of respondents, be they employers or employers' organisations, did not say that they were in favour of the exemption.

Mr. Berry: Correct.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He can clearly still read his book.
The fact is, as the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, that the consultation document clearly set out the proposition that businesses employing fewer than 20 people would be exempt.
Another hon. Member—I have forgotten which one—said that he found it surprising that organisations are not usually backward in coming forward when they feel strongly about something—

Mr. Corbett: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).

Mr. Paice: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not remembering him.
The fact remains that, when one starts off with a positive proposition and people do not respond to say that they do not like it, it is reasonable to assume that they are agnostic. If they felt clearly that the proposition that we were making was wrong, they would have said so. I am the first to recognise that they did not take the opportunity to say that they like it, but they did not say that they did not like it. [Interruption.]
It is no use hon. Members starting to suggest that perhaps the organisations did not bother to reply. They did reply to the overall consultation document, but chose not to express a view on this particular issue. Therefore, the least that one can conclude is that they did not have strong feelings one way or the another: otherwise, they would have so done. If that is the case, I come back to the point that twice as many employers' organisations supported the exclusion as opposed it. That was the point that the hon. Gentleman tried to ridicule when I intervened on him earlier.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister acknowledge that the employers associations that supported the small firms exclusion amounted to 15 per cent. of respondents to that question?

Mr. Paice: We can all do the maths, but the fact is that the organisations that did not respond on that issue clearly did not feel strongly about it one way or the other.
Another aspect of the figures that has been used this afternoon is the fact that small firms play an increasing role in the labour market. Nevertheless, as drafted, the Bill covers some 83 per cent. of employees, or job opportunities. I must be straightforward and tell the House that, if the Government's amendment proposed tomorrow are passed, that figure will drop to 80 per cent., but it is in that bracket.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend accept that the other 20 per cent. really do matter equally as much? Will he further accept that, in Australia and New Zealand, which do not accept that it should be lawful for any firm of any size to discriminate unjustifiably against disabled people, it is not probable that firms will be driven out of business wholesale? Will he accept that there are some 6.5 million disabled people as against the very small number of unreconstructed organisations whose objections he is citing, and that it is for the Government to lead in that field?

Mr. Paice: I was going to come in a moment or two to some of my hon. Friend's specific comments. Of course I understand the points he made, and if he will allow me


just a moment or two, I will respond to them all during the course of my remarks, which I need to pursue at this moment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Paice: This must be the last time.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way, and apologise for the fact that I was not here earlier for the debate, for reasons that the House will understand.
Does the Minister accept that, taking global figures, one may discover that 85 per cent. of the people are outside the small business area, but does he also accept that, in some areas, a higher number of people are looking for employment in the small business sector, and that they should be encouraged to do that?

Mr. Paice: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's apologies for not being here earlier. I am sure that all of us would have wished to be at the same funeral, where I assume he was, paying tribute to our former hon. Friend, the Member for North Down. I was about to address precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
I recognise, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, that there are many parts of the country where small businesses tend to be the norm. Of course, "small" in the normal context does not just mean employers with fewer than 20 employees. Since this subject was debated in Committee, I have thought through my constituency—which I like to think I know well. It is a fairly large rural constituency, but even there I can think of many, many employers who are certainly small, but in no way near being below the 20 limit.
Even with a threshold of 20, and even in rural areas, there will be considerable opportunities for disabled people in organisations that are covered by the Bill. However, even that presupposes that organisations with fewer than 20 employees will want to discriminate against disabled people. We do not want them to do so; we are not encouraging them to do so; we are simply saying that, at present, we do not believe that we should create legislation to require them not to do so, for all the reasons that I stated earlier.
We hope that small businesses will continue to grow, to prosper and to become a larger part of the economy. That is one reason why the Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to raise or lower the threshold. I said in Committee that we would need mightily compelling evidence to increase the threshold above 20. I resisted an amendment that would have removed the upward power in case the threshold was moved to a figure that experience then proved to be too low.
Obviously, since the Committee stage, we have looked at the matter again, and I am pleased that we are able, through amendment No. 122, to deal with any concerns about a possible future move to a threshold higher than 20. The amendment inserts a maximum figure of 20 into the Bill. That was one of the points referred to specifically by my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Exeter. I hope that I have satisfied them.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter not only for moving new clause 6 so excellently, but for his sterling work for disabled people over many years—work matched by very few in this House. He rightly recognised the special position of small firms by proposing that, for those with fewer than 20 employees, the Government should make special provision to help them comply with the law. That presumably assumes that amendment No. 7 is passed, although that is not entirely essential.
I have explained to my hon. Friend and the House that we believe that the threshold is necessary anyway, not least because the action that he proposes in subsection (2) of his new clause would be highly unlikely to deal with the position of all small firms, from farms to factories, shops to offices, or any other organisation. We believe that the code of practice will be drawn widely enough to cover all types of businesses. As I have said already, we will encourage small firms to adopt it, and they will be consulted upon it.
New clause 16 was tabled by the Opposition, who have striven for flexibility, but I am afraid that they have achieved complexity. First, the new clause does not make it clear that the financial provision to which it refers would have to be provided through a scheme or similar arrangement that would need complicated rules in order to operate fairly and effectively. The new clause purports to make provision, but does not provide the means to do so.
Secondly, I do not believe that it would be sensible to attempt to set down in regulations every circumstance in which the wide range of possible adjustments could be considered reasonable for any given employee in any type of small firm—or, for that matter, that it is practicable or sensible for regulations to set deadlines by which particular adjustments must be made. The new clause appears to be an inflexible and bureaucratic approach.
It would be an administrative nightmare to introduce regulations as set out in subsection (3). The use of the word "different" five times in that subsection shows the complexity of the problem that hon. Members seem intent on creating. The permutations would be endless. The new clause would be most unwelcome to small firms, because they would not want to be confronted by such a degree of uncertainty. What we propose is much better and clearer—a clause that sets a clear threshold.
On several occasions today, hon. Members have referred to franchises. A franchise is a business arrangement between one business and another, under which one agrees to sell the goods or services of the other. A firm that takes on a franchise may or may not be a small firm in itself, but if it is small it will face the same difficulties that any other small firm will face, and it will be in no better position to cope with them than any other organisation that is not a franchise.
If it is a larger firm, even one operating at several locations—although we are talking not about locations, but about the firm itself—it will come within the framework of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: When I intervened earlier, I pressed the Minister for an interpretation of whether "number" includes zero. In other words, by passing amendment No.


122, would that give the Government the facility, by order, to include all companies? It is important for the House to know that.

Mr. Paice: Yes.
Several hon. Members have referred—and I listened carefully—to concerns about the potential for uncertainty when a firm employs seasonal workers or people on fixed-term contracts, so the size of the work force moves up and down through the exemption threshold. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned that, together with the hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Lancashire, West and some of my hon. Friends. I recognise that concern, and I shall consider whether action needs to be taken to clarify the position. It may require a new regulating power. I recognise that the concern is real and needs to be dealt with.
I think that I have dealt with most of the comments by hon. Members from both sides of the House. There are already a number of exceptions for small firms in legislation. The one point to which I have not referred was raised by the hon. Member for Erdington, who said that the cap that he envisaged the Government proposing on the financial costs of alterations would somehow help small businesses. I am afraid that he has misread our proposals. We are not proposing a cap on part II of the Bill; our cap refers to part III—the adaptation of premises for goods and services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and other hon. Members who have spoken feel extremely strongly about the issue, and I respect that, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, I hope that they realise that our intent to get rid of discrimination is just as strong as theirs. Our desire to see all firms acting properly towards disabled people is just as strong as theirs.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue his new clause. The Government want to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to use legislation as a vehicle for ultimately changing attitudes. That is best achieved by a Bill that strikes the right balance between the needs of disabled people and the proper priorities of businesses to succeed. Too onerous a Bill would create resentment among the very people whose attitudes we are trying to change.
I have no doubt that, when the Bill is enacted and implemented, we will all learn from experience. That is why I am willing to give an undertaking to the House that we will table an amendment in another place that will require the Government to review the operation of this measure within five years and to give the House the opportunity to debate the issue.
In the light of my comments and the very genuine concern that I and my hon. Friend have to ensure that the Bill's objective is achieved, I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Sir John Hannam: The debate has been extremely useful, with a clear message coming from hon. Members who have participated. My hon. Friend the Minister has shown that he is trying to find a way through small firms' fears, and the desire of all hon. Members to avoid leaving a large number of small firms outside this important anti-discrimination legislation. I welcome Government amendment No. 122, which removes the power to

increase the level of 20 employees. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, a commitment to reduce that figure of exclusion will be made even more strongly.
My new clause 6 is a probing amendment that does not go far enough to satisfy Opposition Members—who, I understand, want to vote for amendment No. 7, which removes the exclusion. Whatever happens tonight, the issue will return to the foreground of debate in the other place. I hope that the Government will consider all the arguments that have been advanced by hon. Members today, and that they will introduce further changes in the other place. However, I recognise the inadequacy of my new clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) misunderstood the views of Opposition Members. We were far from convinced by the Minister, and we ask that our new clause 16 be put to the House.

New clause 16

SMALL FIRMS (No. 2)

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to make such financial provision by way of grants or loans as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet their obligations under this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the circumstances under which adjustments will be considered reasonable for employers who have fewer than 20 employees, and such regulations may specify appropriate periods within which such adjustments shall be made.

(3) Regulations under this section may make different provisions for different circumstances and different sizes of employer and specify different periods within which different adjustments shall be made; and regulations made under this section may be varied by subsequent regulations.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 297.

Division No. 115]
[6.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Alton, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Austin-Walker, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chidgey, David


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Church, Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Coffey, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Betts, Clive
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corston, Jean






Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Enright, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCrea, The Reverend William


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacShane, Denis


Fraser, John
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Madden, Max


Gapes, Mike
Maddock, Diana


Garrett, John
Mahon, Alice


George, Bruce
Mallon, Seamus


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godsiff, Roger
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hall, Mike
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hanson, David
Milburn, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Harvey, Nick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Doug
Morgan, Rhodri


Heppell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hodge, Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoey, Kate
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mudie, George


Home Robertson, John
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Paul


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoyle, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg





Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Spellar, John


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Primarolo, Dawn
Stevenson, George


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rendel, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Touhig, Don


Rogers, Allan
Trimble, David


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watson, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smyth, The Reverend Martin



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. John Owen Jones and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Joe Benton.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Budgen, Nicholas


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butler, Peter


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clark, Dr Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baldry, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dover, Den


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan, Alan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Duncan-Smith, Iain






Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela





Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thomason, Roy


Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stem, Michael
Willetts, David


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sweeney, Walter
Wolfson, Mark


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO EDUCATION

`.—(1) It shall be the duty of an education authority to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled person (including any disabled person who is a minor) shall not, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, be treated less favourably than a person without the disability in being given access to the education which it provides.

(2) The duty under subsection (1) above extends to education and library boards in Northern Ireland.

(3) It shall be the duty of any statutory or incorporated body which provides higher or further education to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled person shall not, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, be treated less favourably than a person without the disability in being given access to the education which it provides.

(4) Schedule (Consequential Amendments Relating to Access to Education) shall have effect in relation to education authorities and bodies.

(5) It shall be unlawful for any charitable body or incorporated body of a kind prescribed under section 12 which provides education or educational services to treat a disabled person less favourably, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, than a person without the disability in giving access to the education or educational services which it provides.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Code of Practice: Education—

`.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue a code of practice containing such practical guidance as he considers appropriate with a view to eliminating discrimination against children with special educational needs in the field of education.
(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice and re-issue it.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a code of practice may include practical guidance as to—

(a) the circumstances in which it would be reasonable to place a child with special educational needs in a special school;
(b) the overall planning of education for children with special educational needs; and
(c) how access to education for children with special educational needs may be ensured.

(4) It shall be the duty of a Local Education Authority in England and Wales, the Funding Agency for Schools, the Schools Funding Council for Wales, an Education Authority in Scotland and governing bodies of schools to have regard to the provisions of any code of practice issued pursuant to this section.
(5) A code of practice issued pursuant to this section shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before a court.
(6) The Secretary of State shall publish any code of practice for the time being in force.
(7) In this section "special educational needs" shall have the same meaning as in section 156 of the Education Act 1993.'.

New clause 8—Further and higher education—

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice containing such practical guidance as he considers appropriate with a view to—

(a) eliminating discrimination against disabled persons in the field of further and higher education;
(b) encouraging good practice in relation to the further and higher education of disabled persons.

(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued under subsection (1) and re-issue it.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) a code of practice issued under the provisions of this section may include practical guidance as to circumstances in which it would be reasonable, having regard in particular to the costs involved, for a further or higher education establishment to be expected to make adjustments in favour of a disabled person.
(4) Further and higher education establishment authorities shall have regard to any code of practice in the exercise of their powers.
(5) A code of practice shall be admissible as evidence in any proceedings under this Act before a county sheriff court.
(6) If any provision of a code of practice appears to a court to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under this Act it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(7) In this section "code of practice" means a code issued by the Secretary of State under this section, and includes a code of practice which has been revised and reissued.'.

Amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 17 to 41.

Amendment No. 5, in page 9, line 17, leave out 'to the contrary'.

Amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 18, leave out 'does not apply' and insert 'applies'.

Amendment No. 10, in page 9, leave out lines 30 to 33.

Amendment No. 11, in page 9, leave out lines 34 to 39.

Amendment No. 4, a new schedule—

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ACCESS TO EDUCATION—

Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 44)

1. After section 60 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (function of education authority in relation to children and young persons with certain special educational needs); insert—

"Education of children and young persons with special needs in schools which are not special schools

60A. It shall be the duty of an education authority in respect of a child with special educational needs who belongs to their area (in accordance with section 23(3) of this Act), and who receives school education, to secure that the young person is educated in a school which is not a special school, unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the young person or, where the education authority are satisfied that the young person is not capable of expressing his views for the purposes of this section, his parent.".

Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)

2. In Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, in paragraph (j), the words "which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above" shall be omitted.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (c. 37)

3. In section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (further education to which section 1 applies), in subsection (1) after paragraph (f), insert—
(g) is designed to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties".

Education Act 1993 (c. 35)

4. In section 160 of the Education Act 1993 (qualified duty to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools)—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "if the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied" shall be omitted;
(b) subsection (2) shall be omitted.'.

Mr. Clarke: The purpose of new clause 3 is to bring education within the purview of the Bill. The Bill makes provision for tackling discrimination in employment, which we have discussed and which will be discussed again in another place, and in access to goods and services. We all agree that discrimination in such matters should be tackled. The rights of disabled people as workers and as consumers are of great importance to their lives, but the Government appear not to recognise the need to open the gateways of opportunity for disabled people to take a full part in employment and in our social and cultural life.
The Government have failed to open three gateways of opportunity, which all need to be included in the Bill. Those gateways are education, access to information and means of transport. All of them are dealt with in new clauses and amendments and we think that it is logical that the first of them to be debated should be education.
The crucial principle that we wish to establish is that no school or college should be permitted to exclude disabled pupils or students on the grounds of their disability or to offer them a second-rate service. That is why we seek to require local education authorities and other bodies which provide education to take reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled child or adult is not treated less favourably than a person without disability in being given access to the education that they provide. That is not a terribly radical proposition.
At first sight, it would seem reasonable to expect a Bill designed to deal with discrimination against disabled people to include education as one of the most influential services in the lives of all of us and to make specific proposals to ensure equality of access to education. Yet the Government have not done so. Perhaps, in the context of a mounting crisis of confidence and resources in the Government's schools policy, that is not so surprising. However, Ministers have argued that they have specifically excluded education not because there is a general crisis in education policy but because of the progress which they claim has already been made in improving the position of disabled pupils and students.
Ministers argued in Committee that education was excluded because enough was being done, particularly in terms of the Education Act 1993 and the new code of practice. That argument was explicit, but what was implicit in the White Paper published in January, which discussed the situation brought about by the Act, was that the Government had very little to say about what more needed to be done.
If things were as rosy as Ministers suggest, there would be no need to exclude education from the Bill. Educational establishments which complied with the existing legislation would have passed with flying colours the tests of accessibility and equal treatment as set out in the Bill. That is not the situation at all. Ministers have excluded education because they know that far too many schools and other establishments simply do not comply with the standards set for other services in the Bill.
The only improvement offered in the White Paper was to extend part M of the new building regulations on disabled access to schools in England and Wales. Those regulations apply to further and higher education colleges and to schools in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, so the innovation would merely bring English and Welsh schools into line with what is required in the vast majority of new buildings of all types.
The reality is that building new schools is not a key feature of the Government's education policy, and the issue of physical access to school buildings must be dealt with in relation to existing buildings. That seems to be a not unreasonable proposition, particularly if the Government accept their responsibility for funding our schools system, which is crucial.
Many pupils with motor impairments could gain access to the curriculum enjoyed by other pupils if they could only gain safe access to the school building itself. Relatively simple changes involving the provision of ramps and lifts and the suitable adaptation of toilets and internal fire doors could transform the situation. For pupils with impaired vision, suitable illumination and painting could make all the difference.
A good deal can be done within classrooms with even fewer cost implications. Low benches in school laboratories and technical rooms could be provided, as could additional lighting and angled writing surfaces for those with a visual impairment. Changes could be made to improve the acoustics of classrooms designed without the needs of pupils with hearing difficulties in mind. School pupils should be able to benefit from special tools and technology available for those who have difficulty with the standard issue tools. Those can range from simple innovations, such as rulers with raised markings, to sophisticated electronic control systems. The current situation is simply not good enough.
Scope—the organisation previously known as the Spastics Society—carried out a survey in 1993 which found that many schools were either physically inaccessible or had not made the kind of simple low-cost adaptations that are required. A majority of secondary schools and nearly two thirds of primary schools had no suitably adapted toilets. One secondary school in 14 and one primary school in seven was completely inaccessible to wheelchair users—children, parents and teachers alike. That continuing inadequacy of provision must be addressed, but it appears to have been ignored by the Government in the White Paper, in the consultation document and—above all—in the Bill.
The Opposition recognise that the Education Act 1993 was a step in the right direction, but we do not believe that including education in the Bill would cut across the Act in any way. On the contrary—according to Ministers themselves—the intention and spirit of the present measure is to reinforce, rather than undermine, the Act.
The Government have made provision both in the 1993 Act and in the existing Bill to ensure that costs are kept under control. If education is included in the Bill—as it should be, comprehensively—education providers would be protected from undue costs by the existing legislation, which requires them to have due regard to the effective use of resources, and by the test of reasonableness applied to other service providers under the Bill.
Including schools in the terms of the Bill would not add unreasonable costs, and certainly not unreasonable extra costs, to the present troubles of the Department for Education. It would ensure that cuts could not be made which would have adverse and compelling effects on the educational opportunities of disabled pupils and that, in my view, is no bad thing.
As well as physical access to schools, the education of children with special needs is affected by the exclusion of education from the Bill. Here again, Ministers have taken the view that the 1993 Act is sufficient, and that it is therefore legitimate to withhold the right to non-discrimination from children, but the evidence simply does not bear that out.
We believe that the parents and guardians of children with special educational needs should have the right to choose between mainstream and special schooling. The 1993 Act provides such a right, but with qualifications which in practice allow enormous variations between one education authority and another. The Department for Education figures for 1992 showed that the proportion of children at special schools was five times higher in Lambeth and East Sussex than in Cornwall and Barnsley. That discrepancy is too great to be explained in terms of different levels of disability, and it shows that the opportunities for mainstream schooling vary greatly from one part of the country to another.
The 1993 Act and the code of practice may have improved access to mainstream schools, but they do not place an obligation on education authorities or grant-maintained schools to improve access and support for children with special educational needs. There is therefore no incentive for those authorities that traditionally placed large numbers of children in special schools to increase their investment in mainstream schools, by providing support for children with special educational needs.
Our new clause and amendments will require local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools to plan for progressive improvements in access and support, without denying special schooling to children whose parents choose to follow that course. They will build on the positive aspects of the 1993 Act and give more disabled young people an opportunity to share the experience of school with other young children, to the benefit of both groups.
7 pm
The Government's White Paper was even weaker on further and higher education than on schools. They, too, are excluded from the Bill, which is extraordinary. The White Paper could only say:
the Government now intends to set in hand a programme to review the effectiveness of the current legislation".
If Ministers genuinely want to test the effectiveness of present legislation, what could be better than to include further and higher education in the Bill that they have devised, and see whether it passes the examination?
The plain fact is that, since 1992, the Further Education Funding Council for England, the FEFC for Wales and the Scottish Education Department have been under an obligation to provide for disabled students, and rightly so, but colleges are under no such obligation. Disabled students often find themselves unable to attend their local further education college, and are forced to travel up to 60 miles a day to find a college that is willing to accommodate them, with no guarantee that the extra travel costs will be met.
There is no guarantee that the necessary support services will be in place as a consequence of the Bill. For example, less than one further education college in five has a policy to provide deaf children with education and only one in four employs a tutor with responsibility for deaf students. Many further education colleges provide no support whatsoever for deaf students.
In higher education, the situation is even less satisfactory. Neither the institutions nor the funding councils are duty bound to offer equal opportunities to disabled students—a disgraceful state of affairs with which the Bill does not deal. In the past two years, special funding initiatives have certainly improved the situation, but have affected less than half of all higher education institutions.
Far too many universities and colleges do not cater for physical access by disabled students, or fail to provide the necessary material or professional support, which is totally unacceptable in a modern age. Schools, colleges and universities provide a gateway to employment—to jobs—and can liberate disabled people from dependence and enable them to play a full part in adult life, as they are entitled to do. It is therefore essential that they should be open unreservedly to all and the Government should not be afraid to subject their education policies to the same test of adequacy and reasonableness that they apply to the other services covered by the Bill.
I have moved the new clause and the amendments in that spirit of promoting real and genuine equality of opportunity for disabled children and adults.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): It may be for the

convenience of the House if I intervene in the debate now, as I have some announcements to make about Government policy on these matters.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) moved new clause 3 and the associated amendments and did so for worthy reasons with which we can readily agree. He wants to provide for disabled pupils and students the opportunities in education that are available to other people, but the new clause and the amendments are emotive and not objective, impractical and not realistic, and would lead to the waste of valuable resources. They would result in a policy for special education that would be muddled, imprecise and unworkable.
New clause 3 and the Opposition amendments would undermine new legislation, especially the Education Act 1993, which is widely recognised as a landmark for special education. That Act used a system that provides for an appropriate school placement and curriculum for every child, irrespective of his or her disability; allows for precise, detailed and rapid assessment, to produce statements for the children with the most severe needs; gives parents of such children fundamental rights of preference for any maintained school, backed by a new, independent tribunal and subject only to conditions that are analogous to those for non-disabled children; and, makes all schools and governors more accountable than ever before for making appropriate provision for all children with special educational needs.
The framework is comprehensive—indeed, it is excellent—and our measures, cemented together by the code of practice on the identification and assessment of pupils with special educational needs, have given an enormous boost to special education. The Audit Commission has given strong support and no little praise for what the Government have achieved in that sector in the past two years.
This series of amendments cuts across, and would ruin, that very successful new legislation, for the following reasons. First, integration into mainstream education is not a simple question of parental choice, as the hon. Member for Monklands, West would have us believe, but is more complex than that.
Special education ranges far more widely than sensory and physical disability. We are in danger of forgetting the many children with emotional and behavioural difficulties who frequently need special school provision. That is especially significant, because children without special educational needs in mainstream schools also have rights—for example, to have their education protected from the disruption that could be caused by children with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties. There is no convincing strategy for handling some children with such needs in mainstream education. Sometimes, withdrawal and a temporary placement in a special school is the only option and parental choice for a mainstream school, however desirable, cannot be allowed to prevent other children from learning efficiently.
We have a fine record of promoting effective integration into mainstream schools. At the moment, two out of three pupils with new statements are entering mainstream schools. Nearly 99 per cent. of all pupils are in mainstream schools and the Government strongly welcome that. None the less, we need a range of special schools. Some parents demand that and many hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for


Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is reported to be receiving many local representations on the matter—know that, when a local education authority tries to close a special school, there is sometimes a furore from local parents and supporters. These are community schools just as much as local comprehensives.
In many cases, as we know from detailed inspection evidence, children are worse off in mainstream schools that are unable to provide the necessary support than they would be in special schools. As I argued in Committee, and the hon. Member for Monklands, West acknowledged, our available resources are finite. He said that, like me, he could make no commitment about whether full accessibility to education could be achieved during a full Parliament, even in a Government of which he was a member. He knows that the resources are finite. The capital cost of making all mainstream schools accessible for all the purposes that might be covered by the Bill is enormous.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am especially grateful that the Minister has given way, as he did not intervene in my speech. Does he accept that the Committee that considered the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) last year made it clear that it was absurd for the Government to pretend that we were seeking all that we want to achieve in terms of civil rights in one Parliament, and that the views that I expressed in Committee reflected those views as well?

Mr. Hague: Yes, I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members made that point. However, he seeks to write something into legislation which he knows he has neither the means nor the capability to deliver in practice, and which no Government could deliver in practice. He raises the prospect of damaging the position of disabled students.
We do not want sensible and realistic local authorities that want to concentrate their resources where they will be most effective, both geographically and with an eye to pupils with the most pressing needs, to have their plans thwarted because of this legislation. Under the new clause, such an authority might be forced to spread its existing resources, with the effect that fewer pupils benefit.
Instead of several schools in an authority, each with excellent resources, being able to take many pupils with a wide range of special needs, we would end up with nearly all schools in that authority with a few ramps, no lifts and improved curriculum access for only a small minority of pupils. I do not believe that that is what the Opposition want. It is certainly not what the Government want, and I do not believe that the Opposition have thought the measure through.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister consider the case of a school in my constituency that teaches 11 to 16-year-olds, is especially geared for the needs of the physically handicapped and does a fine job by them, but when it comes to 16 to 18-year-olds, neither the sixth form college nor the district college can offer a satisfactory continuation? Should not the Minister bear in mind such cases, which are quite disgraceful?

Mr. Hague: Clearly, the authority concerned should concentrate the resources available to it on rectifying that problem. The solution is probably not to place a duty on

the local education authority or other education providers to make some changes to all schools or place of further education. I shall come to further education in a moment.

Mr. Enright: The Minister should note the anomaly that the 11-to-16 school receives local authority provision, but both the sixth form college and the district college have been launched into the stratosphere in terms of management. The fact that they are different bodies causes immense problems.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman will be interested in what I have to say about further and higher education.
Those are the reasons why I believe that new clause 3 is mistaken with regard to school education. Similarly, I see many good reasons to retain and build on the existing legislation covering the responsibilities of further and higher education funding councils, local education authorities, the voluntary sector and independent institutions of further and higher education.
Let us be clear that, in discharging the duties and powers imposed on it, the Further Education Funding Council must always take account of the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities. The funding council already has a duty to secure sufficient full-time education for all young people over the age of 16 and under 19, and the provision of adequate facilities in respect of part-time students on courses leading to vocational and academic qualifications. It must ensure that the education is provided at locations that meet the reasonable needs of all those to whom the duty extends and are equipped appropriately.
Local education authorities have a complementary duty to secure adequate education for adults which falls outside the scope of the funding council's duties, including provision for some independent living and communications skills, for which they have retained funding.
7.15 pm
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education's launch letter of guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council drew particular attention to the importance of provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities and the need for access to higher education for those students to be facilitated. The Further Education Funding Council has demonstrated its commitment to securing effective and coherent provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities through its committee chaired by John Tomlinson of Warwick university.
The Government are rightly proud of their record on widening access. The number of students in higher education has risen from under 750,000 to nearly 1.2 million in the past decade. Particular attention has been paid to increasing the participation of groups that have been under-represented in the past, including those with disabilities. The Higher Education Funding Council allocated £3 million in 1993–94 and a further £3 million in 1994–95 for special initiatives to widen access, which included projects related to physical access, accessible curricula and support services. Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, has been contracted to organise dissemination as well as evaluation.
The new clause would undermine the strategic and planned approach of the funding councils, which already recognises the needs of disabled people. I have already


pointed out that available resources are finite. We cannot pretend that the new clause, if carried, would give all disabled people unrestricted access to all further and higher education institutions. Indeed, that is not the case for their peers. Instead, it risks dissipating scarce resources on piecemeal and ineffective measures. I suggest that hon. Members examine the existing statutory framework, which provides a sound basis to underpin continued development of provision for students with disabilities, before seeking to undermine and disrupt it. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
The approach in new clauses 7 and 8 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and other hon. Members is a good deal more constructive than that in new clause 3. They provide that schools be included in the provisions of the Bill—

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister says that those new clauses are more constructive than that proposed by the Opposition. Which organisations of or for disabled people support them?

Mr. Hague: I am concerned with the merits of each of the new clauses and amendments. It is not my job as Minister with responsibility for disabled people to add up the number of pressure groups on each side of an argument and say that that is the reason for my decision when it affects the policy of the nation. My task is to come to a sensible and balanced policy that advances the causes of students and pupils with learning difficulties or disabilities.
My hon. Friend's new clauses would include schools in clause 12 and establish a new code of practice on children with special educational needs covering questions such as when a placement in a special school would be reasonable; the overall planning of education for children with special educational needs; and how access to education may be insured for such children. They would also include further and higher education in the provisions of the Bill. A further code of practice would be drawn up for HE and FE institutions.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's motives in suggesting those provisions, but must point out several substantial practical difficulties. For example, a second code in parallel with the widely acclaimed special educational needs code of practice would be confusing. It would leave parents, schools and local education authorities uncertain about its relationship with the present code. The Government do not believe that it makes sense to set up completely new rights or mechanisms for appeal against non-admission of children with special educational needs but for whom the question of a statement does not arise. None the less, I have noted my hon. Friends' points in the amendments with care, and I intend in a moment to propose an alternative approach, which will achieve in practice what they are seeking.
In further education, the amendments would undermine the strategic and planned approach of the Further Education Funding Council by placing a separate duty on individual colleges. The council ensures that a coherent pattern of educational provision is available to students with disabilities. It looks beyond its own colleges to courses in maintained and non-maintained schools and independent colleges to avoid duplication and to secure the most effective use of resources. Placing duties on

individual colleges under the Bill would cut across the duties placed on the funding council by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Scarce resources would therefore be dissipated, and there would be a period of confusion at a time when the 1992 legislation is bedding down.
The Government wish, however, to build on existing education and on the considerable progress achieved to date. In conjunction with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education, who are in their place on the Front Bench, I have a number of announcements to make. In the case of further and higher education, we wish to leave the way open to take account of the outcomes of the review programme, which was announced today in answer to a parliamentary question tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
That review programme will include consideration in higher education of how flexibility in capital spending can be used to improve facilities for students with disabilities, ways in which the arrangements for increasing the awareness of staff at further education colleges of the needs of students with disabilities can be improved and whether any further funding incentives could be given to colleges to encourage the enrolment of students with disabilities. It will also consider the administration of the disabled students allowance and the advice and information service provided by Skill, and whether charters for further and higher education can be improved in respect of availability of information to students with disabilities.
The Government have great reservations—

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I have a number of announcements to make, and I must give priority to making them.
The Government have great reservations over the amendments but we accept that it is desirable to find sensible and realistic ways in which to achieve greater access to mainstream schools, ways in which to strengthen the hand of parents who believe that a disabled child is being discriminated against in being refused admission to a school and ways of making both the higher and further education sectors more sensitive and responsive to the needs of disabled students. The Government have therefore decided to bring forward significant amendments to the Bill in another place to achieve those ends. The amendments build on, and add importantly to, existing education legislation.
One of the most important parts of the Education Act 1993 was the requirement for the first time that all schools should have a published policy for special education and should make it available to all parents. By reporting annually to parents, schools will ensure that they are accountable for the work that they do and will benefit from the comments that parents are able to make.
We want greatly to strengthen those measures by making it a requirement in primary legislation that the published annual report should specify the admission arrangements for pupils with special educational needs, the steps that the school takes to avoid discrimination against disabled pupils and a description of facilities which increase or assist access to the school by pupils who are disabled. We therefore hope to amend the Education Act 1993 within the Disability Discrimination Bill to achieve those requirements in law.
In further education, the Government intend to amend the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to require colleges, as a condition of grant from the Further Education Funding Council, to give information on provision for students with disabilities. We envisage that this would give the Secretary of State the power to specify the timing and nature of such information. The reporting requirements would, in themselves, encourage all colleges to give further attention to the needs of students with disabilities. We also propose to amend the 1992 Act to give the Further Education Funding Council an express statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State on progress in facilitating access for students with learning difficulties and disabilities to further education and its plans for the future.
As to redress, disabled individuals would be able to complain in the first instance to colleges if they considered that the institutions had failed to fulfil the expectations raised by their policy statements. In the event that that proved ineffective, the individuals would be able to take their complaints to the Further Education Funding Council. I am considering with my hon. Friends whether an additional amendment might be required to enable the FEFC to take action where it judged a college's response to have been unsatisfactory.
The Government also envisage two amendments bearing on higher education. The first would be a statutory duty for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to have regard to the needs of disabled students in its allocation of funds. That would embody in legislation a requirement at present covered only in guidance from the Secretary of State. Secondly, we envisage that the Secretary of State might take an unambiguous power to enable her to require the funding council to seek policy statements from universities and colleges covering their arrangements for access for disabled students. We shall be consulting representative bodies about the details of the amendments, and, in the context of the review programme, we shall be exploring how it might be given practical expression.
I remind the House that the new proposals make substantial new legislative provision and I believe that they go to the heart of the concerns expressed about further and higher education in particular and education more widely. They are above and beyond our existing legislation, but they build on it in a sensible fashion. They supplement the non-legislative measures already announced—the further and higher education review and the access funding scheme for schools, about which I can now also give further details.
As hon. Members will recall, the schools access initiative was announced in the White Paper which accompanied the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will very shortly be publishing a consultation document on how that scheme might operate in the 1996–97 financial year. We envisage that around £10 million will be available in the first year to encourage imaginative and cost-effective projects aimed at increasing mainstream schools' accessibility to pupils with physical and sensory disability. It should facilitate voluntary involvement by local communities and it aims to build on existing good practice and to act as a spur to improved access, which includes physical access to building and curriculum access to equipment and teaching.
I therefore commend the Government's proposals to the House, and I look forward to their formal introduction in another place in due course. I believe that the proposals will substantially satisfy the concerns of my hon. Friends and of many people outside this House and demonstrate to the House and to the nation that we fully intend students and pupils with disabilities to share in the opening up of opportunities and access for disabled people, which we are dedicated to bringing about.

Dr. Godman: I had hoped to intervene on the Minister to ask him what the comparable figure for Scotland would be, as he mentioned a figure of £10 million for the English funding council. I also wanted to ask him, if I can capture his attention for just for one moment—I listened very intently to him—if, in his role as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, he had held discussions with his Scottish Office colleagues concerning the performance of the 43 further education colleges in Scotland in relation to meeting the aspirations and interests of students suffering from disabilities.
In a letter that I received just today, Catherine Buchanan of the Scottish Association for Mental Health and her colleagues expressed their very serious concern about the Bill and what it fails to do for disabled students. The Scottish mental health and discrimination group, to which Catherine Buchanan's letter refers, states inter alia:
The group believes that the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill is severely flawed and that, in particular, it discriminates unfairly against people with mental health problems.
The group says that what is needed, among other things, is a law to outlaw discrimination in education and training. It further argues:
without fair access to education and training, the employment rights given by the Bill are inadequate.
That is one reason for my support of new clause 3, which has been tabled by the Opposition.
In fairness, I should point out that the association also notes:
There are examples of good practice developing in higher education
in Scotland,
and a legal requirement not to discriminate would underpin and extend such good practice.
That is offered by the new clause. The association also argues:
A law to outlaw discrimination in education would give a powerful incentive to colleges and universities
throughout Scotland
to continue to improve practices.
I accept that a range of performance tables already exist to record improvements in practice.
7.30 pm
In relation to new clause 3, I acknowledge that certain Scottish educational institutions already set a fine benchmark for others to try to match. In my constituency, James Watt college of further education provides many course for people with learning disabilities. Such a college would have no fear of any regulations imposed as a result of new clause 3. That is the kind of quality of education for disabled people that I should like to see extended throughout Scotland.
My constituents with learning disabilities are encouraged by James Watt college to undertake studies such as photography, printing, woodwork and keyboard


skills. That college, which leads the other 42 in its concern for disabled people, provides, through its faculty of learning support and adult resources, educational and training courses for upwards of 800 people throughout Argyll, from Campbeltown in the south to Oban in the north, as well as many areas in Renfrewshire. I should like such a uniform pattern of educational opportunity to be offered throughout Scotland.
I believe that the Scottish Association for Mental Health is right to express its concern at the failure of some universities and colleges of further education to provide the kind of education opportunity offered by James Watt college in Greenock and a few other colleges. Much more needs to be done.
I am sorry that the Minister devoted all his speech to amendments to be tabled in another place which will relate to English universities, colleges and schools. He used the singular "council" about everything he said. That is why I sought to intervene, because the Scottish Association for Mental Health is absolutely right and proper to express its concern about those youngsters who are denied access our colleges of further education and universities north of the border.
I remind the Minister that this is the Parliament of a multinational state—the so-called United Kingdom. He should have voiced some concern and sympathy, which I am sure he feels, for disabled students north of the border. Next time I seek to intervene on behalf of fellow Scots, I hope that he will give way.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I warmly welcome the common sense, practicality and thoroughly constructive spirit in which the Minister made his important announcements. It seemed strange that education had been left out of the Bill, as education should surely be central to it. Education is fundamental to the life chances of everyone—including, of course, disabled people—and I am pleased that education will now be prominent and important in the Bill.
The Bill will follow on a sequence of important reform measures introduced by the Government: the Education Act 1981, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and the Education Act 1993. The latter Act was a particularly important milestone, on which I should like especially to congratulate the Minister of State at the Department for Education.
Even that Act was insufficient, however, because it still left it within the law for schools to discriminate against individual children. As I understand it, it is still lawful for schools to refuse to take a child because he or she is disabled and to treat that child less favourably. I do not know any teacher who would regard such behaviour as tolerable, but it is important that we legislate to ensure that discrimination against disabled people is illegal in education as it is elsewhere.
Legislation has an enormously important declaratory significance. It is, of itself, a great educative force. If we state the standards and decencies that our society expects of schools, colleges and universities, they are fed through into the ethos of those institutions and, in turn, those institutions influence the better development of our society. In that way, we reinforce the values of mutual care, responsibility and good citizenship.
I welcome the announcements that my hon. Friend the Minister has made and his determination, with colleagues at the Department for Education, to ensure that a series of important reforms are incorporated in the Bill. My hon. Friends at the Department for Education have clearly heeded the maxim of R. A. Butler, who said that the way to make progress on the Education Act 1944 was to grasp a good bunch of nettles all at once.
I do not think that the apprehensions that some professionals in education may express will be realised. They may argue that the proposals will be prejudicial to the efficient use of resources or will distort capital programmes. I do not think that those apprehensions will be justified. It is particularly important that the law governing further and higher education should be developed, as it has been significantly weaker than that governing education in schools. We must declare the principle. It is almost universally accepted within the further and higher education sectors. It is right to affirm the values set out in the Bill.
There should be no fear of a threat to academic freedom—I believe that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals acknowledges that—and the institutions should not take fright at the cost implications because the concept of reasonableness will apply.
I add my tribute to the constructive work of the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council. In particular, I pay tribute to Sir William Stubbs and Professor Graeme Davies. Professor Davies sent me a copy of the HEFC's recent publication, "Access to Higher Education: Students with Special Needs", and emphasised to me that he regarded the programme of work set out in that document as being among the key objectives of the HEFC. The practical benefits include reporting on and disseminating good practice and encouraging and assisting institutions to review their practice and to do better.
My hon. Friend the Minister rattled through a series of important announcements, so there is much for hon. Members to digest. I am unclear whether he was suggesting that to attach conditions for funding would in itself be sufficient or whether he wished to go further by establishing a broad legislative duty. It is needful to strengthen the obligations in that regard.
I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend intends to institute some sort of appeals system. The duty to report to the Secretary of State will be extremely useful. I hope that my hon. Friend's further consideration of the possibilities will lead him to invest in the FEFC the scope to take action where it considers that an institution may be defaulting on its proper responsibilities. I would encourage him to be bold about that.
As for the student support system, I believe that the distinction that we continue to make between support for part-time and full-time students is increasingly anachronistic. The majority of students embarking on courses in higher education are aged over 21. We all acknowledge the importance of lifelong learning opportunities in the changing economy and the developing society into which we are moving. Inevitably, those opportunities will have to be taken by large numbers of people part time. I recognise the cost of providing that broader range of support for part-time students, but it is an aspiration that we should firmly establish for ourselves.
Although the lack of mandatory awards for part-time students and the ineligibility of part-time students for disabled students' allowance are not direct discrimination because all part-time students are disqualified from certain awards, they none the less operate as indirect discrimination because, of necessity, a greater proportion of disabled people than of others have to study part time.
My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that the Government would consider the administration of the disabled students' allowance. I wonder whether that alone will be sufficient, or whether they will need to consider the legislative basis and possibly to reconsider the 1962 legislation. I hope and believe that the outcome of the Government's review of higher education, in which those issues will be considered, will be constructive, but I am worried that they may miss the legislative bus. I hope very much that the Government will, in a precautionary way, take powers in the Bill to enable them to enact any changes in student support that the review may suggest are appropriate.
I very much welcome the announcements, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on them.

Ms Lynne: I, too, welcome the announcements. They are rather like a last-minute conversion. We have not had time to study them in detail, but I am glad that the Minister has been forced to accept, to a certain extent, some of the things that have been proposed by organisations representing disabled people. I always thought that education was a glaring omission from the Bill, and that that was one of the Bill's most serious flaws.
However, the announcements do not go far enough. I recognise that, especially in the past few years, enormous strides have been made in assessing people with special educational needs and attempting to meet those needs. For all that, there is not full accessibility of mainstream education. I believe that all children should have equal rights of access to state education. They should have a choice between mainstream and special schools.
I agree with the Minister that some children will need special schools, but it is wrong for children to be forced into them simply because there is no mainstream school that is accessible. They should have a choice. Some children attend mainstream infant and primary schools but are then denied mainstream secondary education or further and higher education. That is disruptive to their schooling and the problem should be tackled.
One in five further education colleges, for instance, has no specific policies for the deaf. Many deaf students opt to attend a specialist college as a result. If they opt to attend one outside their area, it will not be paid for and they have to pay for it themselves. That is an impossible situation. Good will on the part of the schools, colleges and universities is not enough. It must be laid down by statute. However, I urge the Minister to go further than he has with the announcement.
A survey by Scope, formerly the Spastics Society, said that the majority of polling stations were not accessible. It is interesting that most polling stations are in schools, and it is a sad indictment that those people are thus denied in one fell swoop their electoral rights and their educational rights—the two key elements of a modern democracy.

Mr. Barnes: Following the Minister's statement, there may be provisions in the Bill to aid that access, which

would feed through into polling station provision. The problem is that the Minister has placed us in considerable difficulties by making a statement of such complexity at this stage without being able to say what the details are, so that we shall have to wait until the Bill goes to the Lords to know what those arrangements are. Those should have been before us now in a series of amendments.

Ms Lynne: I take the hon. Gentleman's argument. As I said, it is an announcement that the Minister has been forced into making. It would have been preferable if we had seen the proposals beforehand so that we could have examined them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: let us hope that our polling stations will become more accessible, as it will mean that schools are more accessible, because polling stations are mainly in school buildings. People should have a right to vote and a right to be educated, but those rights are denied to them because they are not included in the Bill. It is scandalous that that should be the case in 1995.
My final argument—I am rushing through, as I know that we are short of time—is that we cannot afford not to extend the provisions of the Bill. How can we justify not equipping people with the skills for life? How can we justify not allowing people to realise their full potential? How can we justify not recognising their achievements? The Bill should be inclusive, not exclusive, especially on education. As a former president of Yale said,
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
I hope that the Minister will take note of that.

Sir John Hannam: I wish briefly to express my thanks to Education Ministers who met a delegation as recently as a couple of weeks ago in which we set out the objectives to bring education into the Bill. In the short time available, they have made those recommendations and proposals to be implemented in the House of Lords. I am extremely grateful, on behalf of the all-party disablement group, for the remarks that have been made about the provisions embodied in our new clauses. The Bill has begun to take the shape that we want it to have, incorporating those aspects previously omitted. I very much welcome their inclusion and the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be extremely brief in my remarks. Although I welcome the comments and concessions made by the Government today, I ask strongly for some guidance as to what consultation took place with the Scottish Office and what funding will be available for similar requirements in Scotland. Our statutory and voluntary organisations have followed the debate closely, and it is only right that they should know what will be available to them in relation to the requirements placed on them.

Mr. Hague: The announcements that I made and the figures that I gave relate to England because they relate to the Department for Education. There will be further announcements in due course about provision elsewhere in the country. As the White Paper said, the Scottish Office Education Department will be considering further


the scope for authorities and schools to improve accessibility for disabled pupils, so further announcements will be made in due course.

Mrs. Ewing: Obviously, I welcome that comment, but I hope that "in due course" does not mean that it will be a substantial time before those announcements are made. The authorities have a right to know what is happening.
We have been worried about the attitude of the Scottish Office to some aspects of the Bill. I draw specific attention to clause 14(3)(a)(ii), as I wish to know whether that will apply to the aspects of education to which the Minister has referred, especially further and higher education, where a person with learning difficulties may not be in position to give formal consent. A letter sent by the Scottish Office to Enable of Scotland on 16 March 1995 appeared to be in stark contrast to the advice being given by the Disability Council to similar organisations in England and Wales.
We certainly do not want that clause to apply in education. Indeed, I do not believe that it should apply to any aspect of the Bill. It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to delete parts of the Bill and make them inapplicable to the reforms in education that the Minister mentioned today. I am willing to send the Minister the correspondence so that he may study it in detail and perhaps make a measured response at some stage.

Mr. Hague: indicated assent.

Mr. Torn Clarke: With the leave of the House, I wish to say briefly—I sense that the House is of a mood to take an early decision—that we are disappointed with what the Minister has said. He was unimaginative and far too slow about integration. We already had in the White Paper the contents of his announcements about further and higher education; there was nothing new in what he said. He was slow to present those aspects in the Bill and he did so today purely as a result of my hon. Friends' success in embarrassing him into so doing. The Minister's reference to local colleges hardly fills us with enthusiasm as the Government appointed the business men and others who run those local colleges.
In common with my hon. Friends, I found the Minister unconvincing. I welcome the fact that, because the other place is more radical and progressive than the Minister on these matters, our new clause 3—instead of being muddled, imprecise and unworkable—is clear, precise and workable. For that reason, I recommend it for the support of the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 297.

Division No. 116]
[7.49 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Austin-Walker, John


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Alton, David
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Armstrong, Hilary
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bell, Stuart





Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bennett, Andrew F
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bermingham, Gerald
Godsiff, Roger


Berry, Roger
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gunnell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hain, Peter


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hall, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, Jamie
Hodge, Margaret


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hoey, Kate


Chidgey, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Home Robertson, John


Church, Judith
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hume, John


Corston, Jean
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Janner, Greville


Dafis, Cynog
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dobson, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Eastham, Ken
Litherland, Robert


Enright, Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Etherington, Bill
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Fatchett, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Faulds, Andrew
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McCartney, Ian


Fisher, Mark
McCrea, The Reverend William


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McFall, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McGrady, Eddie


Foster, Don (Bath)
McKelvey, William


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fraser, John
McLeish, Henry


Fyfe, Maria
Maclennan, Robert


Galbraith, Sam
McMaster, Gordon


Galloway, George
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Garrett, John
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce
Madden, Max






Maddock, Diana
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mahon, Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Mallon, Seamus
Ruddock, Joan


Mandelson, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Simpson, Alan


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Alan
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Spellar, John


Morley Elliot
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mudie, George
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don



Trimble, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Walker A Cecil (Belfast N)


Pike, Peter L
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pope, Greg
Wallace, James


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew


Randall, Stuart
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Worthington, Tony


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wray, Jimmy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooney, Terry
Ms Estelle Morris and


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. John Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bates, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Browning, Mrs Angela





Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt. Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David






Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sproat, Iain


Moate, Sir Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Streeter, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Mchael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, Geroge


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Ward, John



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waterson, Nigel


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Tom
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whitney, Ray


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Speed, Sir Keith



Spencer, Sir Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Dr. Liam Fox and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 1

DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION

`—(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall appoint a body which shall be named the Disability Rights Commission ("the Commission").

(2) It shall be the duty of the Commission—

(a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons;
(b) to carry out general investigations with a view to determining whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with;
(c) to investigate such complaints as may be made to them of failure to comply with any provision of the Act in an individual case, and where it seems appropriate, conciliate in relation to such complaints;

(d) to provide, where they deem it appropriate, assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act; and
(e) to keep under review this working of this Act and, when they are so required by the Secretary of State or otherwise think it desirable, draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

(3) The Commission shall issue a draft Code of Practice or draft Codes of Practice setting out the requirements of this Act and the manner in which they may be met, whether generally or in the circumstances of each particular case.

(4) Before issuing any draft Code of Practice under subsection (3) above, the Commission shall consult—

(a) such organisation or organisations of disabled persons; and
(b) such organisations or associations of organisations representative of employers or of workers; and
(c) such other organisations, or bodies

as appear to the Commission to be appropriate or which the Secretary of State has directed the Commission to consult, and shall consider any representations made to it about such drafts.

(5) The Commission shall, within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, publish a Code of Practice or Codes of Practice resulting from its consultations under subsections (3) and (4) above, and shall transmit these to the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of any such Code of Practice transmitted to him under subsection (5) above before Parliament, and if either House of Parliament resolves that the Code of Practice be withdrawn, the Commission shall withdraw that Code of Practice, and prepare another Code of Practice in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.

(7) No motion to withdraw a Code of Practice shall be made in either House of Parliament under subsection (6) above after the expiration of a period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy of the Code of Practice was laid before that House, but for the purposes of calculating this period no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(8) Unless a Code of Practice is withdrawn under the provisions of subsection (6) above, it shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, not being later than six months from the date on which it is published by the Commission.

(9) The Commission shall keep under review each Code of Practice published under this section and shall, at such times as it considers appropriate or when the Secretary of State so directs, revise the whole or any part of any Code of Practice, and the provisions of subsection (4) to (8) above shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such revisions.

(10) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a Code of Practice published in accordance with this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings; but in determining, in respect of Parts II and III of this Act, what actions are permitted or prohibited under those Parts, whether generally or in the circumstances of a particular case, an employer or (as the case may be) a person or body to whom Part II of this Act applies shall have regard to any Code of Practice published in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) above.

(11) In proceedings under sections 8 and 20 of this Act, any provision of a Code of Practice which appears to an industrial tribunal or, as the case may be, a court, to be relevant to an allegation in those proceedings of the commission of an act of discrimination which is unlawful by virtue of Part II or III of this Act shall be admissible in evidence and—

(a) observance or failure to observe any such provision on the part of any person may be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to negative or to establish any liability which is in question in those proceedings; and
(b) a document which purports to be a Code of Practice shall be taken to be such unless the contrary is proved.

(12) Schedule (The Disability Rights Commission) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the Commission.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 14—Investigations by the Council: procedure—

'In respect of general investigations, or investigations of complaints, undertaken by the Council, the Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe—

(a) the procedure whereby the Council may require a person to furnish such information as will assist in any investigation and the time, manner and form in which such information is to be furnished;
(b) the procedures to be followed in the case of a person failing to supply such information;
(c) the penalties to be imposed in the case of a person failing to supply such information, save that such penalties shall not exceed level 3 on the standard scale on summary conviction in respect of such a failure and level 4 in respect of each day on which the failure continues after conviction in respect thereof;
(d) the circumstances in which the Council can make recommendations and reports in the light of its findings in an investigation; and
(e) the manner and form in which such recommendations and reports may be issued.'.

New clause 15—Investigations by the Council: anti-discrimination notices, etc.—

'.—(1) In respect of general investigations, or investigations of complaints, undertaken by the Council, the Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe—

(a) the circumstances in which, following such an investigation, the Council may issue to a person a notice of prohibition of discrimination, which shall be known as a non-discrimination notice;
(b) the manner and form in which such a notice shall be issued;
(c) the procedures to be adopted in investigating whether such a notice is being complied with; and
(d) the procedures to be followed in the case of a non-discrimination notice not being complied with.

(2) Regulations made in accordance with subsection (1) above shall prescribe, in the case of an alleged discrimination by one person against another, the arrangements whereby the Council may—

(a) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part II of this Act, refer the matter to an industrial tribunal, and
(b) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part III of this Act,apply to a county court for an injunction, or a sheriff court for an order, restraining the respondent from such discrimination,

but nothing in those regulations shall prevent an individual from making a claim of discrimination the subject of civil proceedings.'.

Amendment No. 20, in clause 23, page 16, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 in clause 25 on page 19.

Amendment No. 52, in page 16, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 17, and insert—

'(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability; and
(b) to keep under review the working of this Act and, when directed to do so by the Secretary of State or when it otherwise thinks it desirable, to draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

(3) In discharging its duties under subsection (2), the Council shall have the power—


(a) to investigate such complaints as are made to it of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case, and where it considers it appropriate, to conciliate in relation to such complaints;
(b) to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act;
(c) to carry out investigations with a view to determining whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with; and
(d) to undertake, or assist (whether financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons, of any research and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2) above.'.

Amendment No. 45, in page 16, line 35, at end insert—
'(d) on matters related to the provisions or operation of other enactments or government policies relating to disabled persons insofar as they affect the opportunities of disabled persons other than in the field of employment.'.

Amendment No. 53, in page 17, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 48,

Amendment No. 1, a new schedule:—'The Disability Rights Commission—

Constitution of the Commission

1. The Commission shall consist of at least eight but not more than fifteen persons ("Commissioners") appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with organisations of disabled people, on a full-time or part-time basis, four of whom, including the chairman, shall be full-time members.

2. At least three-quarters of the total number of the Commissioners shall themselves be persons who, at the time of their appointment, are disabled persons or the authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

3. So far as is reasonably practicable, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the Commission includes at least one member who resides in each of England, Scotland and Wales.

4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the Commissioners to be chairman of the Commission and one of the Commissioners to be deputy chairman of the Commission.

(2) Both the chairman and the deputy chairman shall be persons who, at the time of their appointment, are disabled persons or authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

5. On the appointment by the Secretary of State of the first Commissioners, the Commission shall come into existence as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal.

6.—(1) The Commission is not an emanation of the Crown, and shall not act or be treated as the servant or agent of the Crown.

(2) Accordingly—

(a) neither the Commission nor a Commissioner not a member of its staff as such is entitled to any status, immunity, privilege or exemption enjoyed by the Crown;
(b) the Commissioners and members of the staff of the Commission as such are not civil servants; and
(c) the Commission's property is not property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

Tenure of Office of Commissioners

7.—(1) A Commissioner shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(2) A person shall not be appointed a Commissioner for more than—

(a) where he was appointed on 31st March in any year, five years; and
(b) in any other case, the period which expires with the first 31st March after the fifth anniversary of his appointment.

(3) With the consent of the Commissioner concerned, the Secretary of State may alter the terms of an appointment so as to make a full-time Commissioner into a part-time Commissioner or vice versa, or for any other purpose.

(4) A Commissioner may resign by notice to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may terminate the appointment of a Commissioner if satisfied that—

(a) without the consent of the Commission, he failed to attend the meetings of the Commission during a continuous period of six months beginning not earlier than nine months before the termination; or
(b) he is an undischarged bankrupt, or has made an arrangement with his creditors, or is insolvent within the meaning of paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 3 to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland Act) 1970 or who is otherwise unable to pay his debts; or
(c) he is incapable of carrying out his duties.

(6) Past service as a Commissioner is no bar to re-appointment.

Tenure of office of chairman and deputy chairman

8.—(1) The chairman and deputy chairman shall hold and vacate those offices in accordance with the terms of his appointment, and may resign by notice to the Secretary of State.

(2) The office of the chairman or deputy chairman is vacated if he ceases to be a Commissioner.

(3) Past service as chairman or deputy chairman is no bar to re-appointment.

Remuneration of Commissioners

9. The Secretary of State may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the Commissioners or any of them as, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, he may determine.

10. Where a person ceases to be a Commissioner otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service direct the Commission to make to that person a payment of such amount as, with the consent of that Minister, the Secretary of State may determine.

Staff

11. The Commission may, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint such officers and servants as they think fit, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.

12.—(1) Employment with the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a superannuation scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) the words "Disability Rights Commission" shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order.

(2) Where a person who is employed by the Commission and is by reference to that employment a participant in a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 becomes a Commissioner, the Minister for the Civil Service may determine that his service as a Commissioner shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Commission; and his rights under the schemes shall not be affected by paragraph 9.

13. The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 shall not require insurance to be effected by the Commission.

Proceedings and Business

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and may vary or revoke those arrangements.

(2) The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by a committee of the Commission, or by two or more Commissioners.

(3) Anything done by or in relation to a committee, or Commissioners, in the discharge of the Commission's functions shall have the same effect as if done by or in relation to the Commission.

15. The validity of any proceedings of the Commission shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members of the Commission or by any defect in the appointment of any Commissioner.

16. The quorum for meetings of the Commission shall in the first instance be determined by a meeting of the Commission attended by not fewer than five Commissioners.

Finance

17. The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commission expenses incurred or to be incurred by it under paragraphs 11 and 12 with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service and Treasury, and shall pay to the Commission such sums as the Secretary of State thinks fit for enabling the Commission to meet other expenses.

18.—(1) The Commission shall keep proper accounts of their income and expenditure, and shall prepare and send to the Secretary of State statements of account in relation to each financial year of the Commission.

(2) The financial year of the Commission shall be the twelve months ending on 31st March.

Disqualification Acts

19. In Part II of Schedule I to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified under those Acts) there shall (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order) be inserted the following entry:
The Disability Rights Commission".

Investigations

20. In respect of general investigations or investigations of complaints undertaken by the Commission the Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations—

(a) the procedure whereby the Commission may require a person to furnish such information as they think will assist in any investigation, and the time, manner and form in which such information is to be furnished;
(b) the procedures to be followed in the case of that person failing to supply that information; and
(c) the penalties to be imposed in the case of that person failing to supply that information; save that such penalties shall not exceed level 3 of the standard scale on summary conviction in respect of such a failure and level 4 in respect of each day on which the failure in continued after conviction in respect thereof.

21.—(1) In respect of general investigations of complaints undertaken by the Commission the Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations—

(a) the circumstances in which, following such an investigation, the Commission may issue to a person a notice of prohibition of discrimination, which shall be known as a non-discrimination notice;
(b) the manner and form in which such a notice shall be issued;
(c) the procedures to be adopted in investigation whether such a not is being complied with; and
(d) the procedures to be followed in the case of a non-discrimination notice not being complied with.

(2) Regulations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above shall prescribe, in the case of an alleged discrimination by one person against another, the arrangements whereby the Commission may—

(a) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part II of this Act, refer the matter to an industrial tribunal, and


(b) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part III of this Act, apply to a county court for an injunction, or a sheriff court for an order, restraining the respondent from such discrimination,

but nothing in those regulations shall prevent an individual from making a claim of discrimination the subject of civil proceedings.

Annual Report

22.—(1) As soon as possible after 31st March in each year, the Commission shall make to the Secretary of State a report on their activities during the year, hereinafter referred to as an "annual report".

(2) Each annual report shall include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates in respect of matters falling within the scope of the Commission's duties.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the annual report before each House of Parliament and shall cause the report to be published.'.

Amendment No. 23, in schedule 3, page 32, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 34.

Amendment No. 56, in page 33, line 3, after 'chairman', insert
'provided that both the chairman and the deputy chairman shall be persons who at the time of their appointment are disabled persons or authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.

Amendment No. 57, in page 33, line 13, leave out 'try to'.

Amendment No. 58, in page 33, line 15, leave out
'parents or guardians of disabled persons'

and insert
'authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.

Amendment No. 59, in page 33, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert—
'6. The Council may, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint such officers and servants as it thinks fit, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.

7.—(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Council—

(a) expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by it under paragraph 6, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service and the Treasury, and
(b) such other sums as, with the approval of the Treasury, he determines to be required for enabling the Council to meet other expenses which it has incurred, or will incur.

(2) The Council shall keep proper accounts of its income and expenditure and shall prepare and transmit to the Secretary of State statements of accounts in relation to each financial year of the Council which shall be included in the annual report made under paragraph 9 below.

Amendment No. 25, in schedule 6, page 37, line 7, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 9 and insert
'for "Disability Rights Commission" substitute "Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland".'.

Amendment No. 26, in page 37, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 39 and insert—
'(2) In section (Disability Rights Commission)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "Disability Rights Commission" substitute "Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland";
(b) for "Secretary of State" in each place where it occurs substitute "Department of Health and Social Services";

(c) in subsection (6) for "Parliament" in the first place where it occurs substitute "the Assembly" and for "either House of Parliament" substitute "the Assembly";
(d) in subsection 7, for "either House of Parliament", "that House", and "Parliament" respectively, substitute "the Assembly" and for the words from "prorogued" to the end of the subsection substitute "or during which the Assembly has not sat for any continuous period of more than four days.".'.

Amendment No. 60, in page 37, line 10, leave out from 'State"' to end of line 33 and insert
'substitute "Department of Health and Social Services".'.

Amendment No. 62, in page 39, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 40 and insert—
'16. In section (Investigations by the Council: procedure), for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of Health and Social Services".

16A. In section (Investigations by the Council: anti-discriminatory notices, etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "Secretary of State" substitute "a Northern Ireland department", and
(b) in subsection (2)(b), leave out ", or a sheriff court for an order,".'.

Amendment No. 63, in page 44, line 24, leave out '6'.

Amendment No. 64, in page 44, line 26, leave out '7(d) for "Treasury"' and insert
'6 and 7 for "Treasury" in each place where it occurs'.

Amendment No. 27, in page 45, line 43, at end add—
'29. In Schedule (The Disability Rights Commission)—

(a) in the heading, after "Commission", insert "for Northern Ireland.",
(b) for "Secretary of State" in each place where it occurs, substitute "Department of Health and Social Services";
(c) in paragraph 3 for the words from "the Commission" to the end of the paragraph substitute "the Commissioners are resident in Northern Ireland.";
(d) in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 17 for "Minister for the Civil Service" or "Minister for the Civil Service and Treasury", substitute "Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland";
(e) for paragraph 19 substitute—
19. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place the following entry:
'Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland'.".

(f) in paragraph 21(2)(b), leave out ", or a sheriff court for an order,";
(g) in paragraph 22(3), for "each House of Parliament" substitute "the Assembly".'.

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted with the growing support for our measures.
New clause 1 and the associated new clauses and amendments deal with the disability rights commission and go to the heart of the Bill. The first test of good law is whether it is enforceable: the Bill fails that test. Ministers have resisted a disability rights commission, despite the overwhelming force of the arguments in its favour-not least those expressed in Committee.
Why do not the Government listen even to Conservative Members? The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who has made distinguished contributions on the subject, made clear his view on Second Reading—and no doubt he will do so today if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He


described the Government's proposals for an advisory council as opposed to an effective commission as insufficient, and he was right.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) suggested that something stronger than an advisory organisation might be required, and he called on the Minister to reconsider his opposition to a commission. We will learn tonight whether the Minister has paid any heed to that call, and whether, in the absence of any response, Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby voting for a positive response.
In The Guardian last Wednesday, Jonathan Kaye, who is a member of the Conservative party and has responsibility for disability policy in the Bow group, joined the chorus of support for a fruitful, powerful commission. He predicted that, if the Government do not create a commission now, they will be forced to do so in two years' time because the Bill will not work without one—a view with which I entirely agree.
Mr. Kaye noted that, under Government proposals, Britain will be the only country to pass such legislation without creating a suitable enforcement body to ensure compliance. He asked why a party claiming to be dedicated to law and order—as the Conservative party increasingly does—seems reluctant to provide the means to enforce a law. He asked why the Government have placed themselves in that unbelievable position. The Minister should try to give a convincing answer.
New clauses and amendments on the amendment paper include those in the names of the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), and propose to add to the powers of the national disability council powers similar to those that we propose for the disability rights commission. Conservative and Opposition Members are on common ground on that issue, and I hope that we go through the Lobby together at the end of this debate. That which matters more than anything else is not the name but the substance, and in substance we are agreed. The Bill needs more than any other improvement the establishment of a body with powers to investigate and to eliminate discrimination against disabled people.
The Government's proposals will not only make British law uniquely unenforceable by international standards but put disability discrimination in a new legal category at home. Models for anti-discrimination law exist, and legislation on discrimination on grounds of race or gender include provision for enforcement—and so they should.
That is the right road to follow, yet the Government have deliberately chosen not to follow it in respect of disabled people. They propose to give disability discrimination a lower status than race or sex discrimination. If the commission model works in other areas, it should work for disability, yet the Government ignore the existence of other models of anti-discrimination law at home and abroad. Parliament has provided the best protection that it can devise against race or sex discrimination, as it should, but it is asked to provide second-class protection for disabled people.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better to have just one commission named the commission for fair

employment to deal with race, sex, disablement and other forms of discrimination—instead of establishing another miniature empire?

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, it would have been more helpful if he had tabled an amendment or a new clause. His idea may sound progressive, but for that reason the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People would have resisted it. Even the logic that he promotes is not something that the Department would find appealing.
Disabled people should have more than just the law on their side—they need law enforcement. Our proposals would create a commission with a range of powers. The disability rights commission would be able to provide assistance, including financial and legal assistance, to disabled people seeking redress for acts of discrimination. That alone is profoundly important for what we regard as a free society. The commission would be able to carry out general investigations, to determine whether discrimination—including indirect discrimination, of which there is much evidence—was taking place and to encourage employers and service providers to comply with the law.
The commission would, where necessary, be able to bring proceedings to compel employers or service providers to obey the law. There is no reason why it should not. The idea squares with the Government's approach to many other matters, including race and gender.
We believe that the onus should not always be on disabled people to prove that they have suffered discrimination, or to take action to obtain a remedy. Alleged discriminators should be obliged to show that their practices comply with the law. Investigative powers for the commission will ensure that practices that discriminate are found out and remedied sooner rather than later. The very existence of such powers will encourage compliance with the law.
Most cases brought to the Commission for Racial Equality under the Race Relations Act 1976 are settled without the need to go to court. That is important to the overwhelming case for a commission. The Government appear to anticipate that the same will happen here—and we hope that they are right. But the point that they seem to miss is that most race discrimination cases are settled out of court precisely because the alleged discriminators know that the CRE has the powers to enforce the law, so they sensibly choose to comply at an early stage.
The disability rights commission would have a general duty to work towards the elimination of discrimination—as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission do. This duty would involve promoting awareness of the profoundly important issue of disability discrimination. That would save many people and organisations from finding themselves in breach of the law in the first place. The commission would be free to initiate its own research and education in pursuit of its wider objectives. That too would allow it to achieve prevention rather than cure—an idea that should appeal to the Minister and the Government.
The powers that we propose are complementary. The commission that we envisage would quickly build up the necessary expertise to allow it to draft effective codes of practice and to recommend to Ministers practical improvements to the law. That is far more effective and


efficient than the Government's approach. It is a way of promoting equality, instead of relying on complainants pursuing their cases, given that so many impediments are placed in their way.
The Commission for Racial Equality has found that
promotional work is greatly strengthened by the awareness of employers that, if it fails, formal investigations are possible … Guidance and codes are heavily based on the information that has come … through formal investigations and individual complaints.
Investigative powers and promotional duties go together, therefore, and form a coherent package which we propose and support. Disabled people want that package too, and for employers and service providers the existence of a credible national body with the authority to oversee and to enforce the law provides a clear point of reference and source of guidance for those who wish to know how to proceed.
The Institute of Personnel Development and the Employers Forum on Disability have both called for a national body with powers, status and resources equivalent to those of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The CBI has also expressed disquiet about the lack of clarity in the plans for the Government's national disability council—in particular about whether it can carry out independent research, and about its interaction with the other equality commissions and the arbitration service ACAS. In the CBI's words:
The latter is particularly important given the potential complications arising from overlaps of jurisdiction in cases of compound discrimination".
That is a diplomatic and technical way of putting it.
8.15 pm
Let me put it another way: employers want to know what happens when an employee or job applicant is discriminated against more than once. For example, what happens when a disabled woman is refused promotion for no apparent reason? Most employers do not want to discriminate unfairly, and rightly want to ensure that their competitors do not obtain an unfair advantage by unfair discrimination.
The unacceptable answer is that, under the Government's proposals, a disabled woman will have much more effective redress if she suffered discrimination on account of her gender than if she did on account of her disability. If the former applied, the Equal Opportunities Commission might take up her case, provide her with legal and financial support, issue a notice of non-discrimination against her employer and impose financial penalties if the employer failed to co-operate—all laudable and practical steps. If the same disabled woman suffered unfair discrimination because of her disability, however, the Government-proposed national disability council would be able to do absolutely nothing.
The plain fact is that the council will be able to monitor discrimination but not do anything about it. It will be able to advise the Government in certain areas, but not to tell anyone if the Government choose not to follow its advice. It will be able to offer draft codes of practice, but only when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. That is simply not good enough. Disabled people want and are entitled to first-class protection under the law.
Lord Snowdon recently reminded me of what Martin Luther King said about discrimination:
Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrict the heartless.
With the benefit of 30 years' experience of race relations law in this country, we can and should go further in this area. Effective law can make unthinkable forms of discrimination that were standard practice only a generation before. Enforceable regulations can change the rules of the game and allow those who have suffered discrimination in the past the benefit of the level playing field to which they are entitled in a modern democracy.
A disability discrimination Act—even the measure before us, with all its weaknesses and omissions—can transform the prospects for disabled people in future generations, especially if it is accompanied by an effective enforcement body that can ensure its implementation and inform Ministers of what more needs to be done to make discrimination against disabled people a thing of the past.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I have tabled new clauses 14 and 15 and amendments Nos. 52 to 59 to extend the powers of the national disability council. My objective is very much the same as that of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but I proceed by a different route. Instead of seeking to establish a disability rights commission, I seek to build on the institution that the Government propose to create, the NDC. My amendments would extend the powers of the council. At present, its role will be purely advisory. The amendments would give it a role and powers that would be in line with those of the commissions that have been established under other equal opportunities legislation.
Why do I wish to extend the powers of the council? I do so because I believe that for us to create rights without providing the means to sustain them is a hollow act. The rights of disabled people and our support for them should be no less than the rights and support that we accord to our fellow human beings on grounds of race and gender. Any discrimination against people because they belong to a particular group or category is odious, dehumanising and deeply offensive to the principles of a liberal and humane society.
It is not good enough to leave disadvantaged people to use their exiguous resources to assert and gain their rights against others richer and more powerful than themselves. Major employers, such as those in membership of the Employers Forum on Disability, agree with that proposition. For example, British Rail and the Midland bank have observed that, without an enforcement agency, too many firms will continue to do what they want and what is convenient to them.
We have always accepted in Parliament that it is the role of the state to step in to protect the weak and the vulnerable from the abuse of power, whether exercised by mediaeval barons, mill owners, landlords, trade union bosses or the limited number of today's employers who insist on acting in a discriminatory fashion.
We should have a disability rights commission or a strengthened NDC. I do not mind what the body is called, so long as it does the job that it is needed to undertake. It must have powers to investigate and enforce.
We need a commission that has a strategic role, in the same way as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The legislative model


that we have in relation to those two bodies will serve us well in the establishment of the body that we need to sustain the rights of those who may experience discrimination because of their disablement.
Any such body should work with a light touch. No one wants a commission that bears down heavily and is excessively bureaucratic, excessively litigious and looking to interfere and to pick fights. I know that those are the fears of some of my hon. Friends, but I believe that they are very much misplaced. If my hon. Friends look open-mindedly and fairly at the record, they will recognise that that is so.
Nor is the organisation that I have in mind to be compared with the American Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, which has a particular role that I do not propose for a strengthened NDC. The commission has a remit, I understand, to screen all cases that may come to court. It is much better to do as the Government propose and to provide direct access to tribunals and courts for complainants. The strengthened council's role would, in a sense, be more selective. It would always be seeking to advance the principle of equal opportunity and the unacceptability of unjustified discrimination. It would proceed by taking up cases where there was a special cause to do so—for example, because of their representative importance or because of the wider beneficial impact that its involvement in a case would have.
The need for that is vital, as are the other needs that have been acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a need for the Government to receive advice and a need for individual disabled people to be assisted by the adoption of practical remedies.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has argued against a broader enforcement role for the commission or strengthened council on the basis that all disabled people are individuals and disabilities are unique. That is true, but we wish to act against the evil of unjustifiable discrimination, which occurs in an all too regularly repeated range of ways.
I shall give the House an example. Where there are medical screening procedures with overly restrictive criteria, a procedure that is simple in itself will act differentially and, in effect, involve indirect discrimination. If an organisation has a broad-brush policy, it is wrong to require individuals who may be unfairly affected by discrimination to seek an individual remedy.
I am assured that the Post Office—I was surprised and disappointed to hear this—has a policy of not allowing its employees who have diabetes to drive its vehicles. It is not against the law for diabetics to drive, but the Post Office has adopted a blanket policy. That is my information. If what I have said is incorrect, I shall apologise and readily withdraw. I am advised on good authority, however, that what I have said is, indeed, the position. The Post Office does not make an individual assessment of the ability of an employee who has diabetes to drive its vehicles.
The Post Office's policy seems unreasonable, especially as it does not apply the policy to someone who was diagnosed as diabetic before 1984. The policy seems to be comprehensively confused. That is surely a good

instance of a broad employment issue in an enormous organisation which a disability rights commission or a strengthened NDC could usefully investigate.

Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am insulin dependent and know a little about what he is saying. I had not thought of myself as disabled. It is important to understand that the licensing authorities will not allow the driving of public service vehicles by diabetics. That is true of the fire brigade and of heavy goods vehicle drivers, who automatically lose their licence if they become insulin dependent. They can apply for the restoration of their licence after a period, but it is extremely rare for such a driver to regain his licence.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interesting and helpful. We are clearly in debatable territory. It seems eminently suitable for a public-spirited and expert agency to investigate it and to consider what the appropriate criteria may be, and to make recommendations, if it judges that necessary, for improved employment policy or, possibly, improved legislation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will note that the body that has instilled that practice is under Government direction. Does he agree that it is important that the Government do something to change that direction?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes the point well. The Government have a responsibility to promote good employment practice throughout our economy and society, especially where large public service organisations are involved.
Let me give the House another instance where a commission could usefully be involved. I am advised again—on the evidence of a consultant psychiatrist writing in The Lancet—that it is the policy of some health authorities not to employ anyone with epilepsy. That seems quite extraordinary and to my mind is disgraceful and indefensible. If an employer does not take a rational view of the nature and prognosis of epilepsy, a disability rights commission or a strengthened national disability council, could look at the issue—for example, in health service employment—and make recommendations.

Mr. Devlin: Hang on a minute. Suppose a local health authority or health trust were to be sued by a patient for the results of an epileptic attack during a medical procedure, how would the national health trust justify itself to the patient in those circumstances?

Mr. Howarth: It is interesting that practice between health authorities is very different. Some health authorities—to my mind in this particular respect, the better employers—look carefully at the individual circumstances and the health of particular people whom they might employ, and they do not invariably take the view that there are no circumstances in which they could responsibly employ someone with epilepsy. There may well be certain responsibilities than an epileptic should not be expected to carry out, but I do not think that my hon. Friend, on reflection, would really wish to argue that there are no jobs in the health service that someone with epilepsy could reasonably be expected to perform.
8.30 pm
What my hon. Friend says bears out my contention that we badly need an intelligent, expert body charged with the responsibility to help us to evolve good practice in such fields. It seems to me that the system that my hon. Friend the Minister envisages would place unreasonable demands on individuals affected by such discrimination. Certainly, if the individual is left to fend for himself or herself, to try to establish his or her own rights, that will not help adequately to generalise good practice. Indeed, we may be left with a series of piecemeal, confused—even contradictory—resolutions by different industrial tribunals.
It is tempting for employers in the unhappy situation where they have to make redundancies to look for rather simple rules of thumb, to look for simple criteria, for example, rates of absenteeism. If that is to be the criterion for selecting those who are to be made redundant, it is all too likely that it will bear heavily on people who have good cause to be absent, because they need medical appointments. Those people have valid reasons, because of their condition, to be away from work from time to time. Again, that seems to be the kind of problem with which a commission could deal.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The absenteeism rate of people with disabilities is normally lower than that of others because disabled people are so exceptionally conscientious.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I accept her implied chiding.
Let me give one instance of the useful work that the Equal Opportunities Commission carries out. I refer to its investigation, the results of which were published in March this year, into employment agencies. The EOC found that there was indeed widespread sex stereotyping, and opportunities were restricted for all too many people. If individuals had been simply left to take their own cases in this matter to tribunals, they would not have had access to the knowledge and experience that the EOC had.
If some of those individuals had been successful in bringing their cases, I still do not believe that the outcome would have been sufficiently generalised to influence practice in the way in which an EOC investigation is able to do. Within five days of the EOC report being published, 250 organisations contacted it for further advice. I would like to see such opportunities and developments occurring in respect of disability.
The EOC and the Commission for Racial Equality provide invaluable advice to businesses. Similarly, advice and help will be needed in the disability field—certainly advice and help that go beyond what I believe, with the best will in the world, the placement, assessment and counselling teams or, indeed, citizens advice bureaux, will be able to provide. The citizens advice bureaux do a marvellous job in advising citizens on how they may find remedy for their grievances. I do not think that the CAB would wish to be entrusted with the major role of advising employers on what proper practice should be.
I very much welcome the Government's commitment to remove the restriction in the National Assistance Act 1948 on the provision of direct payments to disabled people. It always seemed to me to be an unfortunate provision. I recognise the complexity of what will be entailed, however. I was sorry that my right hon. Friends

felt unable to incorporate in the Bill a clause that would at least have cleared away the legislative roadblock to further detailed progress. That is one more example of where I believe that a commission would be helpful.
There will, indeed, be much to be thought about, to be considered carefully and to be learnt from subsequent experience. My amendment No. 45, which has been selected, says that the national disability council should have a duty to advise on policy developments in a range of fields, apart from employment. That is one such instance in which it could play a valuable role. I hope that, in due course, it will do so.
I have proposed that the national disability council should be given additional powers. The strengthened national disability council should have wide powers to provide assistance to people who complain of discrimination. It should have broad law enforcement powers, including the ability to conduct formal investigations and to take certain forms of legal action in its own name. It should have the power to conduct formal investigations either to examine whether a particular organisation is discriminating or to promote equal opportunities within a specific area, such as the practices of employment agencies, to which I referred just now, or estate agents. It should have the power, in specified circumstances, to issue non-discrimination notices and to make recommendations about improving practices to specific organisations.
It should have the power to apply to the court for orders restraining persons from persistent discrimination. It should have the power to draw up codes of practice, subject to approval by the Secretary of State and Parliament, and to make recommendations for the improved operation of the law.
The existence of a national organisation, able actively to promote equality of opportunity, both through advising organisations and through taking legal action in specific instances where necessary, is crucial to developing our culture, to changing entrenched attitudes and to working effectively towards removing the patterns of discrimination which still disfigure our society, and which my hon. Friend the Minister deplores as much as I do.
It is important to recognise that the various powers, duties and activities that a strengthened council would undertake are mutually interdependent. They would reinforce one another. The capacity of the council to carry out successful investigations and to make valuable recommendations will depend on the accumulation of its practical experience: in advising individuals and in taking individual actions, as well as its broader overview.
It is through operating the totality of their responsibilities that the CRE and EOC have been able to build up the expertise that then makes it possible for them to draft effective codes of practice and recommend practical improvements to the law. It is not only the Government or the individual who is the victim of discrimination who would benefit from that, but organisations of many sorts, especially businesses.
The credibility and the depth of experience that the existing commissions possess enable them to work pro-actively to remove discriminatory barriers and to promote equality of opportunity. They wish to do that and, almost invariably, they indeed do so in a conciliatory manner. It is not their desire to seek recourse to the courts.
However, the existence of a strategic enforcement power enables the commissions, when necessary, to influence recalcitrant individuals and organisations as, sadly, is necessary from time to time. I am certain that that long-established mode—we now have 20 years' experience of it—is effective and efficient and would be more so than what the Government propose in respect of disability, which is to rely solely on individual claimants, if they are driven to it and if they can manage to do so, having recourse themselves to legal remedies.
As the hon. Member for Monklands, West said, that is why organisations such as the Employers Forum on Disability and the Institute of Personnel Management have called for a national body to oversee the operation of disability law, with powers, resources and status equal to those of the EOC and the CRE.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is willing to reconsider his position. I feel strongly that if we do not have either a disability rights commission or a strengthened national disability council, there will remain a hole in the heart of the Bill—a Bill that represents an enormous advance, for which my hon. Friend the Minister should be personally congratulated. I hope that he will recognise this necessity, and be able to persuade our right hon. and hon. Friends of the necessity, of completing the task that he has set himself.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not only to new clause 1, which I support, but to new clause 17, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I am grateful to Madam Speaker for including my new clause in this group.
My new clause provides for the position in Wales, but before discussing that I want to deal with the generality and to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). We all know from our constituency surgeries and from work in our own areas of the difficulties and frustrations faced by disabled people and their families because they cannot get what they need, what they know they need and what they feel they have a right to have.
Our challenge is to make the Bill meaningful for them; for it to be more than just a tablet of stone that says, "Yes, you have a right, but you cannot have that right delivered to you." The Bill needs to be accessible to them, usable by them, understandable, comprehensible, sensitive, quick acting and within reach. It also needs to be effective—and for it to be so, I cannot but feel that there needs to be more than the council provided for in the Bill.
The danger is that the council may well give good advice, may well look at the generality of the scene and may be able to help individuals with conciliation services and so move their cases forward, but when it comes to the really hard cases, the ones that conciliation cannot crack, stronger measures may be needed. Existing bodies already try a conciliation process. For example, disability organisations such as RADAR, Mencap and Scope play their role within their client groups to try to get answers to problems. The citizens advice bureau does the same. Numerous agencies try, on a voluntary basis, to get people together to solve the problems, but fail to do so.
8.45 pm
I could cite individual cases in my area. In earlier debates, I have mentioned people with disability not being able to get work and not knowing where to turn to get the support that would ensure that the discrimination practised against them was set aside and that they got the opportunities they deserved. I know of a case in the Swansea area, which has been running for some months, of a family with a disabled son who need substantial adaptations to their house. That is within the power of the local authority's grant-making structures, but the machinery is not working and is highly unsatisfactory. There was a need for somebody to get in there and sort it out, but it was only when one of the voluntary sector bodies began to play it rough that the problems began to be sorted out, although they are still not totally sorted out.
In one of our earliest debates on civil rights, I cited the case of a cinema in Cardiff that would not allow access to someone in a wheelchair because of the difficulties should there be a fire. We have heard all that before. We need a body to which people who have been treated in that way can turn and which they know will take action on their behalf and make it stick. They need to know how to get access to such a body.
With all the good will in the world, the council, as it is described and defined in the Bill, will be much too passive a body. It will need to have teeth. Although it may be in only a small minority of cases that people need to go to court—the last thing I want to do is to give money to lawyers on either side of the argument—the ultimate sanction of being able to go to court, with an Act of Parliament behind them, must be significant for those who are trying to enforce all the other rights embodied in the Bill and the further rights that we want built into it now or at a later stage.
If we are to overcome discrimination in employment, leisure services, the provision of facilities, transport and education, there must be a cast-iron guarantee. Without one, people will not have the confidence to come forward. They need to be sure that someone is there who will make sure that their case is heard.
Having referred to the generality, and having expressed my support for new clause 1 and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I want to deal with my new clause 17, which provides for the establishment of a disablement commission for Wales. Such a body is needed; Wales specifically needs to have the structure of a commission, with the rights outlined in the new clause. The same case can be made for Scotland, and I am aware that new clause 19, tabled by the Scottish National party, provides for a similar body in Scotland. However, I shall confine my remarks to Wales.
I believe that such a body in Wales is necessary for three or four reasons. First, there is a high level of disability in Wales—some 300,000 disabled people. The profile of disability has, to some extent, grown out of our industrial past. The characteristics of that manifest themselves in, for example, the high level of invalidity benefit in Wales, which is some 50 per cent. higher than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a high level of need in Wales, which I am sure Welsh Members of Parliament from all parties recognise.
Secondly, the Welsh Office in Wales has a one-stop-shop function for a number of critical responsibilities relevant to disability. It has responsibility for health, social services, education, employment,


housing and planning. All those functions are relevant to disabled people. I have heard friends in the voluntary sector in the west midlands say how sorry they are that they do not have such a government structure that brings those various facets together to develop disability policy.
No doubt the existence of the Welsh Office enabled Wales to take strides that, I think, were not taken elsewhere in the early 1980s, when Nicholas Edwards was Secretary of State for Wales. The all-Wales strategy for mentally handicapped children and adults was a significant advance. Other advances have been made in Wales in other aspects of disability. We must have a body that relates to public policy, as has already been developed in Wales under the structure in the Welsh Office.
It is equally important that an interface exists between local government and either the commission, which the new clause would give us, or the council, which the Government have put forward. A new local government structure comes into force in Wales in April next year. The elections are in May of this year. That unitary structure throughout Wales will again bring together at local level all local government departments that deal with disabled people—social services, housing, education and planning. Again, a close working relationship should exist between what we would call the disablement commission for Wales, or the council as the Government would put it, and local authorities. No interface exists in the Government's model, but it is provided for in subsection (2)(a) of new clause 17.
We believe that it is important that that interface exists and that there should be a close working relationship between the commission and the voluntary sector. Goodness knows, in the world of disability, the voluntary sector is vital. In the past 20 years, that sector in Wales has reorganised itself to shadow the Welsh Office. There used to be a Mencap in north Wales, north-west England and south Wales. Mencap in Wales was established to respond in a strategic manner—I use the words "strategic manner", which were mentioned earlier—to disabled people's needs.
That is equally relevant in relation to the disablement commission for Wales, for which we are pressing. Coterminosity and co-operation on a day-to-day basis should exist between that body and the voluntary sector. It can be the provider of links with individuals. It can be part of the fine tuning of policy that is needed for feedback to go through to the Welsh Office and to the Secretary of State, as would happen on a general level in London.
One additional dimension is covered in subsection (12) of new clause 17. In the event of a parliament or legislative assembly for Wales, which is likely to happen after the next general election within a year or two—[Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary of State for Employment smiling. He may feel that the Conservative party will win the next general election, but opinion polls suggest otherwise.
When such elected bodies are set up in Wales and Scotland, there will be a question of answerability. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is not here but, equally, I suggest to him that his model should include provision to ensure that such a structure is answerable to a Scottish or Welsh Parliament or Assembly. A close working relationship must exist with the decision-taking mechanism that affects disabled people. In the Scottish model, most of the powers would

be devolved to a Scottish Parliament and, in the Welsh model, to the Welsh Parliament or Assembly. Those ideas are on the cards.
Any commission must be close to the people whom it is serving and who are taking decisions on a day-to-day basis. It should not be remote or faceless. We have felt the lack of a race discrimination structure in Wales. Some cases have been followed in an unfortunate way because of that lack. Developments are afoot to try to overcome that. We have recently established the Welsh Language Board. For many disabled people, the language dimension must be taken on board. An interplay exists between language ability and provision of services, not least in relation to speech therapy services, which are often inadequate.
Those are the, reasons why we introduced our new clause 17. We want to ensure that there is a commission in the context of Wales. We would equally like the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Monklands, West to be brought into effect after Report. The Government may succeed in withstanding the new clauses in this group, but I hope that the Minister will say clearly how the council, as he has envisaged it, will interface, in Wales and in Scotland, with government structures. I accept that he may not go down the road of envisaging the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, but how will his council make adequate provision for the needs of Wales with the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office, the different local government structures, and the voluntary sector? There appears to be no provision on that in the Bill. That perhaps was not given an adequate airing in Committee.
If the Government, after considering the debate tonight, withstand our attempt to write in new provisions, will they at least say that some fine tuning is necessary in the other place to ensure that the structures that arise are responsive to regions such as Wales, where circumstances are slightly different and where we need the mechanisms to respond to that? Then and only then will disabled people in Wales receive the full benefits of the legislation that we are enacting. There is a responsibility on us to ensure that that takes place.

Mr. Devlin: In new clause 1, we have a foretaste of what would come if a Labour Government were ever elected. In the past, Labour Members have made a general onslaught on quangos throughout the country. Representing a constituency that is covered by an efficient quango—the Teesside development corporation—I know that such attacks are regularly on their lips. Despite that, tonight they are trying to establish yet another regulatory body to go along with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am not sure that that is in the interests of the country or of disabled people.
The country is very much over-regulated. People constantly complain about the European Community coming in and interfering, in the niggly way that it does, with a range of regulation and red tape. They feel that the country is gradually being ground to a halt under a great burden of regulation. I do not wish us to have yet more interfering commissions to regulate the affairs, business and every other feature of life. Some hon. Members may be keen to make well-intentioned changes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that disabled people are possibly the most regulated group in


the country by virtue of the fact that they are denied access to transport, jobs and leisure opportunities? Would it not be nice to deregulate life for them?

Mr. Devlin: Yes, it would be very nice. I have been a member of the all-party disablement group for many years. I have examined many different ways in which these things could be done. I do not see that to create yet another commission is the right way to go about it.
When I asked a question of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who is not here any more, I said that perhaps the best way forward would be to merge the existing two commissions, put the further commission in with it and create a single commission called something like the fair employment commission. To carry on building yet more bodies which will turn out to be great empires of bureaucracy, officials and inspectors with investigating powers issuing codes of practice will create yet another industry all by itself.
I have seen the Equal Opportunities Commission, and in particular the Commission for Racial Equality, in action. They take the attitude that anyone who does not agree with the positive discrimination measures that they suggest is politically incorrect and to be treated in an offhand manner.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Devlin: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already, and he did not make a good point then.
The House should be wary of creating any more such bodies. I dealt with a complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality not many months ago. The initial reaction was negative, even though my constituents had a perfectly valid point. They wanted to know why there was positive discrimination in respect of Asian women in a particular situation. The next thing we knew, there was some fobbing off comment in the local press. People got angry about it and the whole thing became ridiculous, simply because the people in the commission would not accept that there was another point of view which should be treated in a valid and sensible way. I wonder whether we would not be going down the same road with the disablement commission which has been proposed by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
I listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who always makes eloquent and impressive speeches. I have known him for a long time—since he was at the Conservative research department. I know how well informed he is and how much he cares about disabled people and the voluntary sector. I was worried when I heard him say that the commission should work with a light touch. It should not be bureaucratic, overbearing or self-advancing—I think that those were the words that he used.
My experience of the two commissions is that that is precisely what they are—bureaucratic like nobody's business, overbearing, intrusive and self-advancing in every aspect of life. If we set up another commission, having had experience of the two commissions, we will find ourselves in yet further trouble.

9 pm

Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Devlin: I do not wish to detain the House for long.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Devlin: I give way to my hon. Friend, because I mentioned him.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is kind. He has explained to the House why he does not think that it would be a good idea to have a disability rights commission. He is a lawyer. He will undoubtedly have a commitment to justice. If he does not think that a commission is a good way to promote justice and insists on seeing a commission as only a regulatory body and not a suitable agency to promote justice in our society, what constructive means does he propose?

Mr. Devlin: If we are to advance further rights for disabled people, which is the purpose of the Bill, we must encourage them to use the court system if they find themselves prejudiced in any way. As my hon. Friend says, I am a lawyer. Rights are enforceable in the courts of law.
I should like to see, and I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents would like to see, legal aid given to deserving disabled people taking action against bad employment practices rather than handed out to the Maxwell brothers or to people who want to sue the tobacco industry, having spent their entire life smoking and knowing the risk. There is a great deal that we could do with legal aid to make it more accessible to people so that we could make the justice system work rather than allow it to be the perquisite of people who could afford to pay lots of money.
In my time at the Bar, I took a percentage of cases for nothing because I believed that poor people who cannot afford to go to law should be able to do so and be represented at tribunals. I have appeared before medical appeals tribunals and other tribunals for nothing. That is the way it has to be if we are not to reduce the ludicrous charges which are passed on to the consumer of law.

Mr. Pickthall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Devlin: No. I am sorry. I have taken two interventions. I am trying to keep my speech short because I know that many hon. Members are anxious to have a go. If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate law with me, I will be happy to do so in a debate on a more appropriate piece of legislation.
The debate tonight is about whether we should have a commission for disabled people. I firmly believe that we should have no more commissions and that the commissions that we have should be merged. We should have something like a fair employment or equal employment rights commission. We should have no more extra bureaucracies, no more inspectors, no more codes of practice. Let us leave the people of this country to get on with the serious business of creating wealth and adding to the value and quality of life in our country.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Again, I follow the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) who, as before, made well-informed, highly principled and strongly persuasive speeches. I also wish to say a brief word about the speech by the hon. Member


for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). The House ought to be grateful to him for letting us hear in this debate the authentic voice of Conservative opposition to the very concept of a disabled rights commission.
Having brought to this House more legislation on disability than anyone else—all of which has stood the test of time—I offer the present Minister a word of well-meant advice. It is that nothing does more to damage to the reputation of a Minister or to that of this House than to enact legislation that cannot be enforced. That is what could happen in the case of this Bill if the Government persist with their proposal for a mere advisory council in place of what we propose in new clause 1. My inclusion in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill of provisions for a strong commission to enforce the Bill's other provisions was to avoid the serious danger of unenforceable legislation.
Nothing upsets the disability organisations more than the Government's refusal give disabled people in this Bill the same protection against discrimination as the law already affords to women and to ethnic minorities. They cite that as proof positive that, in their Disability Discrimination Bill, the Government are offering only second-class rights to second-class citizens. The Minister must have heard that statement from the disability organisations, as all of us have heard it from them in their condemnation of the Bill for failing to confer full citizenship on disabled people.
The Government said year after year that to legislate on discrimination against disabled people would lead to a lawyers' paradise; that there would be a glut of litigation. But the disability rights commission we propose is about reducing, not provoking, litigation. It is about keeping differences within bounds, not about encouraging litigation. Disabled people are not looking for avoidable trouble. They have enough problems to contend with already.
The Government's Bill provides only for an individual to take an action at a tribunal or in the county court, but there will be issues to be determined that affect whole groups of disabled people and that a disabled rights commission could tackle in a constructive way. As I said at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill, the Government's proposal for an advisory council is, in the words of Sir Peter Large, a whey-faced ghost of what is required.
Not only does it lack teeth: it enjoys no life of its own. It can act only in response to summonses of the Secretary of State. Its subservience is blatantly obvious in that it will be specifically excluded by statute from even daring to offer advice on any of the important issues covered by the Government' Bill. In saying that, I was reflecting the opinion in the organisations of disabled people. They reject the national disability council, and they want, in its place, the disability rights commission for which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill provides.
The Government's attitude has not basically altered since an hour-long meeting I had with the Prime Minister after the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was first talked out in January 1992, for which the then Member for Kingswood had to make a personal statement of apology for misleading the House. The Prime Minister said to me at our meeting:
The proposal for a Disability Rights Commission sits uncomfortably with the Government's policy of deregulation.

That is what he said and what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has said again tonight. I repeat that the hon. Member has given the House tonight the authentic Conservative view to the very concept of a disability rights commission.

Mr. Barnes: The view of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was so strong that, logically, he should also oppose the national disability council. Even though we think that it is a limited measure, it has certain functions to fulfil and considers such things as codes of practice put to it by the Secretary of State. That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position, and he should oppose the Government's Bill.

Mr. Morris: I welcome the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done marvellous work in carrying on the battle to enact the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am absolutely certain that, if his energy and commitment can turn that Bill into law, then the battle between the two Bills is not yet over by a long chalk.
I agree with the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The lives of disabled people are very heavily regulated by the limitations imposed upon them by their disabilities. They want their very lives to be derogated by a disability rights commission with the full powers of enforcement.
I return to what the Prime Minister said about the commission being inconsistent with the Government's policy of deregulation. If that is the case, then so is the Equal Opportunities Commission. That also sits uncomfortably with the Government's policy of deregulation. So does the Commission for Racial Equality. That sits uncomfortably with the Government's policy on deregulation as well.
So I use this debate to warn the millions of people who benefit from the Equal Opportunities Commission and from the work of CRE that there is an implied threat to the EOC and the CRE, in what the Government are saying about our disability rights commission. I hope that people other than disabled people will wake up to the significance of this debate. I hope that they will recognise that the bodies that exist to protect them are in danger if we cannot protect the proposal that we are making for a similar body to protect disabled people.
There are many views about what precisely it was that plunged this Government to their unprecedented unpopularity last year. Different Members will have different views about that phenomenon, but all of us here should listen to the views of others as well as to our parliamentary colleagues.
In Wales the week before last, in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I was in discussion with constituents of his who work in the professions supplementary to medicine. Let me confide to the Minister that they were in no doubt why the Government's standing plummeted to an all-time low last year. They agreed without exception that nothing did more to damage this Government than their wholly scandalous treatment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
They were disgusted, like millions of other people all over Britain, that such a Bill could lead to three Members of Parliament having to make personal statements of unreserved apology for misleading the House of


Commons about the Bill. The best way to make good for their malfeasance is for the Government now to concede what the organisations of and for disabled people want from this debate. They want, like the vast majority of other people want, a strong and effective Disability Rights Commission that will fully enforce their rights.
The House knows my views on unfair discrimination against disabled people. It is that such discrimination is morally wrong, and that what is morally wrong ought no longer to be legally permissible. That requires a strong and effective disability rights commission, and I implore the Minister not to persist in obstructing that vitally important safeguard for disabled people.

Ms Lynne: I support the new clause, because of a desire to assist the Government in seeming consistent and logical.
The Bill reminds me a little of a cardboard cut-out policeman. It is cost-effective to start with, because it slows traffic and stops people speeding. Placed at the side of the road, it looks like a policeman from a distance and cars slow down. Everyone thinks what a great success it is, until they suddenly realise that it is a cardboard cut-out, and they will not be stopped or fined. Car drivers then ignore it and continue speeding. Without force, without compulsion or without legal sanction, the Bill will be as weak as that cardboard cut-out policeman. It is a public relations novelty with limited effect. Ultimately, unless we have a commission, it will appear to be ridiculous.
The Bill needs teeth. It needs a commission with the same monitoring and investigative powers as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, both of which support the setting up of a disability rights commission. They demonstrate that we cannot rely on good will and good practice alone for equal opportunities legislation to be adhered to.
By introducing the Bill, the Government admit that education and persuasion simply have not worked, and that legal sanction is required. Why, then, do they introduce an advisory council, which is a neutered body whose remit is purely to advise? Might it be that they could not withstand the criticisms or see their failure to adhere to UK or European legislation? I appreciate that they may be resistant to it, but the overriding importance for any legislation we pass is that it be effective and adhered to; otherwise, what is the point of passing it?
To remain consistent with existing legislation and precedent, the Government must accept this new clause. Our constitution is an unwritten and unspoken acceptance of parliamentary trust, and it requires detail and clarity. Our laws need detail and clarity, but also force. The Bill will be simply academic and will lack credibility unless we have a commission to enforce it.
It was traumatic enough to start with; the Government were forced kicking and screaming into providing it, and they introduced it in a hurried and embarrassed way. Let us hope that, when it reaches maturity, as I assume it will, it will have a few more teeth and be a little stronger and healthier than it is today.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the new clauses moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)

and, at the same time, welcome the strength that they would give the Bill. It is good that the Minister has moved forward in positive ways. I hope not only that will he be able to accept the proposal in the new clauses and amendments, but that he will persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to support them too.
The argument that we should deregulate was set forth by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). The harsh reality is that this Government have regulated more than they have deregulated. The areas in which they have pursued deregulation have been specifically connected with market forces, yet, if one considers the proposal for this advisory council, one notices that one of its main thrusts is that the council should deal with finance rather than with the specific needs of people who have been blatantly discriminated against.
Such a proposal comes rather strange from a Government who changed the Fair Employment Agency in Northern Ireland to the Fair Employment Commission. Indeed, it is fascinating that some people in Northern Ireland are agitating for the extension of the Commission for Racial Equality to Northern Ireland. So, in future, a Chinese woman may be able to raise issues of discrimination, but if she happened to be disabled, there would be absolutely no redress in law. Per head of population, however, Northern Ireland has a higher percentage of disabled people than any other part of the United Kingdom.
Considering the pressure on our time tonight, I simply urge the Government to think again. They have moved with the feeling so far and I welcome that, but I ask them to go a little bit further and to give us a commission, or a council with increased powers, which will strengthen the case of people with disability. Incidentally, it may be rather significant that the Northern Ireland Employers Forum for Disability has employed a person who once worked with the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland so that it may forward the case of people with disabilities.
In other aspects of the Bill, one cannot find a scrap of evidence of support for the most deprived section of our community. If the views of the hon. Member for Stockton, South were accepted, those people would be in a fascinating position. Lawyers approached by disabled people could be dilatory in taking up their cases because they had a remit from the firm which could be sued for disability.
There is a place for an independent commission or a council with teeth to take up the rights of people with disability. I support, on behalf of my colleagues, the cry from the Conservative and Opposition Benches that the Government should accept such a proposal with good grace and go forward with vigour and power.

Mr. Barnes: There have been some important votes tonight and we shall have some important votes tomorrow on this Bill, but the most important of them all is that on new clause 1. If the disability rights commission were to be established, it would entirely transform the nature of the Bill. The Bill would still have imperfections if definitions were not put right, and whole areas of exemptions would not be covered, but agreeing to the proposal in new clause 1 is exactly what we should do.
There are two main factors about the disability rights commission. First, it has already been stressed considerably that it would be the key enforcement agency.


It is no use giving people rights, even if under this Bill they are restricted rights, and having no means by which we may begin to put them into operation. That would be a cruel deception, and we do not want the Bill to be guilty of that. Conciliation services, legal back-up and the other items described by Opposition Members and certain Conservative Members are the key elements.
The other thing that annoys the Government, and certainly annoys the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), is that the commission would be a dynamic force. In time, it would help to extend the areas covered by legislation, so that discrimination against disabled people did not take place.
The concept of reasonableness runs through the Bill, as it does through the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. What is reasonable now depends on current circumstances, the interpretation of the courts, back-up and understanding. That concept is not necessarily static, because the boundaries of its responsibility will be extended as fresh interpretations of that concept are made. The commission would have a key role in that regard. It would monitor, conduct research, issue reports and codes of practice, as well as publish annual reports which would be available to the House. The commission would push the fight against discrimination across different areas of responsibility.
Because of its intended work, that commission would come to realise that the Bill is subject to certain limitations and restrictions. In time, it would recommend that the enactment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill represented the final required means of removing exemptions and clarifying definitions. The commission is the key to the Opposition's support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, as distinct from the Government's stance.
The commission would not be bureaucratic, nor would it dominate and control, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South has suggested. It would make reports available to the House, which would then have the opportunity to investigate and respond to them. The House might even recommend that certain of the commission's notions should not be adopted, or that the direction of the commission should be altered.
The commission would do a service for disabled people; a service for others in society and a service to Parliament by resolving the problem of discrimination. A future Secretary of State for Social Security, of whichever party, will always need to be pushed and nudged to ensure that the concerns of disabled people are always before him or her at all times.
I hope that the key vote on the new clause will be carried, so that we are left with an entirely different Bill.

Mr. Hague: As hon. Members have explained, the large group of new clauses and amendments is intended to substitute a commission for the national disability council or provide that council with powers akin to those of a commission.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) reminded us that, if we pass legislation, we must ensure that means of redress and enforcement exist. I thoroughly agree that we must be confident of being able to enforce legislation that we pass. The Government have no interest, and I have no interest, in securing the passage of legislation that would not work in practice.
I believe, however, that the assumption that the creation of a commission represents the only means of approaching the problem is flawed. It is not the only way, and it is certainly not the best or most effective way, of providing for enforcement.
Hon. Members have maintained that disabled people need a commission with powers similar to the commissions that deal with discrimination in sex and race. We must decide whether disabled people will be best served by a single organisation with those powers. I ask the House to be open to the concept that there are other ways to provide for the needs of Government and Parliament to receive expert policy advice and for the needs of disabled people to be able to seek redress.
9.30 pm
There are other ways that will be highly effective in taking us towards our goal of ending discrimination that provide for much of the role carried out by commissions but are better suited to that purpose. They will be better suited because they recognise the need for a high-level organisation to advise Government about policy and to prepare clear, practical codes of practice for business and disabled people, and because they recognise and provide for the specific needs of disabled people for accessible mechanisms to resolve disputes. They will be more effective because they have been developed taking account of the social and economic circumstances of disabled people and business, and will provide technical assistance and the individual approach necessary to overcome discrimination against disabled people.
Before I discuss the Government's proposals, let me respond to one or two of the specific arguments made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to employment policies in the Post Office and in health authorities. I cannot necessarily comment in this debate on the specific examples he gave, although I can tell him that the example that he gave of Post Office drivers with diabetes is one that I am pursuing in my role not as Minister for Disabled People but as Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks on behalf of a constituent. I have written as a constituency Member of Parliament to the Post Office and asked it for the basis of that policy.
The employers whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon mentioned would be required by the Bill to consider whether a reasonable adjustment might allow disabled people to work for them. My hon. Friend cannot sustain his argument by saying that employers such as the Post Office or the national health service would flout the law proposed in the Bill. Indeed, as he said earlier in another debate, legislation itself has a great declaratory force, and I think that, especially with organisations of that type, we would discover that it has great declaratory force. The question of whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency permits people with diabetes to drive certain types of vehicle is exactly the type of question that the national disability council may wish to consider and advise the Government on.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), with all the consistency and force of someone who sits in the House as a nationalist, made the case for new clause 17 and for a specific organisation for Wales. The Bill relates to the whole of the United Kingdom. Although there is considerable precedent for setting up a separate Northern Ireland disability council because of the different body


of Northern Ireland legislation already in existence, and because Northern Ireland has its own advisory bodies such as the transport advisory committee and committees for the employment of disabled people, that is not true of the rest of Great Britain, where a unified approach has traditionally been taken to such matters.
I said in Committee that we intend that the national disability council will include members representing Wales, Scotland and England as well as the regions of England. Experience of other Great Britain organisations—and of the House, too—suggests that Welsh Members are well able to argue their point of view and to ensure that their interests are appropriately taken into account.
There are considerable benefits in one organisation taking a consistent approach in advising on the elimination of discrimination—for example, in ensuring that the best and most effective practice can be shared. We are not aware of a need for a separate Welsh or indeed Scottish organisation of any type. Of course, the national disability council will want to listen to the advice and the representations of local government throughout the country—throughout Wales, Scotland and England—and there is no reason why there should not be contact and discussion between the council and representatives of local government.
There are two reasons why people are asking for a commission to be created in relation to the legislation.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister regard the council as a fairly centralised body, or will it have offices not only in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast but in English cities, such as Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and Leeds? What role will such offices have? It is vital that disabled people should feel that they are able to access a body that is close at hand rather than a remote body centralised in London.

Mr. Hague: I do not envisage that the body will have offices around the country, but I expect that it will take steps, through its membership and the way in which it organises its discussions and seeks information, to keep in touch with views from all over Great Britain—and, in the case of the Northern Ireland council, views from all over Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon that disabled people must have an easily accessible and available body to which they can turn for advice about the matters to which the Bill relates. I will return to that point in a few moments.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: No, I must continue with my speech. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many constructive discussions in Committee. I will give way to him later if time permits, but I wish to afford the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) the opportunity to respond to what I have said and to enable the House to reach a decision.
People seek a commission for two purposes: first, to give advice, follow progress and provide a forum and a focus of expertise; and, secondly, to help people to seek redress. As to the first purpose, I believe that our proposals for the national disability council provide for a strong and well-informed body that will advise the Government on issues relating to discrimination against disabled people.
It will be a powerful voice for disabled people that will focus on the wider issues, informed by the skills and experience of its members and by information collected by its advice and support services, to which I shall return shortly. It will also be assisted by research commissioned on its behalf and by consultation with existing advisory bodies. I am confident that it will fulfil the important advisory function every bit as well as a commission would and every bit as effectively as the National Council on Disability in America.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hague: To be fair to both sides of the House, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is extremely generous. Will he explain to the House how he foresees the national disability council being able to provide advice of the reach and the quality that he requires if it does not have powers of formal investigation?

Mr. Hague: I have mentioned that it will have the range of information that is provided by research that can be commissioned on its behalf. It will be able to consult existing advisory bodies, information will flow from the operation of the advisory and support services and it will have the continuing day-to-day experience of its members—at least half of whom will be disabled people or their parents or guardians and all of whom will have a great interest in the matter. I do not think that the national disability council will be short of views, evidence and examples of what is happening around the country with which to inform its discussions about the future progress being made in tackling such matters.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I must carry on, as I wish to give the hon. Member for Monklands, West time to respond.
The national disability council's code of practice will be invaluable in providing clear and practical advice to disabled people and to business in what could potentially become a very complex area, given the vast range of businesses that will need to comply with the legislation and the varying and possibly conflicting needs of disabled people with different impairments.
Our proposals for the national disability council to prepare codes of practice clarify the responsibility of Government and the council, while permitting an open exchange of advice on which to base policy decisions. We have no wish to silence the voice of the national disability council. It will be open to its members to recommend, for instance, that a code of practice be prepared or that an existing code requires updating. The council will be a continuing, powerful voice that will speak to the Government and have its reports laid before Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I intend to ensure that the council's membership will be such that it will be in a strong position to be that powerful voice.
Some hon. Members advocated a commission not so much to provide advice to the Government and Parliament but to help people seek redress. The Government recognise that disabled people will have a need for advice and support, but that role does not have to be played by the same body that advises the Government on wider issues. The skills needed to advise individuals and to


resolve disputes are in many ways different from those needed in giving advice and making policy recommendations.
The discrimination suffered by disabled people is different from that faced by others, and is unique. While the disadvantages may have a similar effect, it is too simplistic to suggest that the causes are the same as those that give rise to sex or race discrimination. The Bill recognises and seeks to address the wide range of causes of discrimination against disabled people.
It requires service providers and employers to go much further than they have had to do in the past to overcome discrimination against other groups. They are being asked to do more than change their attitudes to those commonly considered proper in a civilised society, as in other legislation. In this case, service providers and employers must act to ensure that their employment practices and their services are accessible to disabled people in the manner required by the Bill.
An important plank in ensuring that the Bill is enforced and effective is communicating its provisions properly to employers and service providers. The hon. Member for Monklands, West rightly spoke of the CBI's concern that clear and impartial advice should be available to employers both nationally and locally. We will discuss with the CBI and other business organisations how best to make such advice available. We will consult them on draft regulations and the operation of the legislation, and they will have an opportunity—as will other people—to comment on any codes of practice.
We know from the experience of the Americans with Disabilities Act how important it is to make information available as widely as possible. Despite all the commissions and enforcement bodies in the United States, several years after the enactment of the ADA, most of the public had not heard of it. In those circumstances, of course it is difficult to provide for enforcement.
I am determined to ensure that employers, service providers and traders across the nation will be in no doubt of what they are expected to do and why. As well as written guidance, we are considering freephone advice lines and other facilities so that employers and service providers can be sure of their responsibilities under the legislation. I am sure that the vast majority of them will want to act in accordance with the measure, provided that we make clear to them the measures passed by this House and the other place and the reasons for our doing so.
We are determined not only to communicate but to provide conciliation, advice and support. Because the Bill reflects the needs of disabled people, our proposals in those regards also take a different approach. In goods and services, we intend to provide a nationwide, locally available advice and support network whereby people can meet face to face if necessary, without travelling long distances—a point of particular concern to many disabled people.
That process will inevitably involve an exploration of the facts, and local knowledge could play an important role in bringing greater understanding to resolving disputes involving physical access. We also intend that a standard investigation procedure should apply throughout the country—service providers will welcome a consistent approach, which will consequently help to maximise the number of disputes which are settled in a spirit of co-operation. Where disputes cannot be resolved in this forum, there will be recourse to the courts.
The Employment Service will be able to help employers and disabled people to identify suitable adjustments at the workplace to overcome the practical effects of a disability. This should help to avoid many disputes arising in the first place. When a complaint is made to a tribunal, there will be access to the conciliation services provided by ACAS, which has many years of experience of conciliation on employment issues. Should these not reach a resolution, there will be access to industrial tribunals, which are tried and tested mechanisms for securing employment rights.
9.45 pm
I know that some hon. Members are concerned that the conciliation, advice and support services will not actually provide financial assistance in taking cases to industrial tribunals and courts; they fear, therefore, that disabled people will not be able to enforce their rights. I believe that those fears are unfounded. The procedures in both small claims courts and industrial tribunals are relatively simple. The decision makers in each institution are familiar with, and used to, ensuring that individuals are helped to present their case.
I would also, however, draw to the attention of the House the evidence of experience with other legislation. Experience of the Commission for Racial Equality suggests that the vast majority of cases are settled without recourse to legal action. Furthermore, of the cases brought to industrial tribunals under the Sex Discrimination Act, 90 per cent. are not assisted by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I believe that our proposals will provide the assistance that disabled people will need without setting up the centralised bureaucratic monitoring and policing body proposed in new clause 1 and the amendments.
I also believe that conciliation, advice and support services will be more effective in achieving resolutions and encouraging employers and service providers to go that bit further to end discriminatory practices when they slip up. We cannot ignore the fact that this legislation, in giving new rights to disabled people, places considerable duties and obligations on business. It will need good guidance to comply with it—we shall give business that—and to increase its understanding and awareness of the needs of disabled people. This we intend to provide through extensive publicity, through guidance about the Act and through practical codes of practice.
I believe that the new rights can and will be enforced under the arrangements that I have set out, but that they could not be achieved without obtaining the good will and efforts of both service providers and employers. Another policing body could well prove counter-productive. A commission positioned entirely as an advocate for disabled people would not be best placed to encourage those efforts, and as such its success, in my view, would be limited.
I believe that the combination that I have set out will work. There will be a national disability council to provide continuing advice in the coming years to this House and to this and future Governments. Its membership will include strong representation of disabled people and of others with expertise. We shall make extensive efforts to communicate thoroughly with all those who have duties placed on them, to tell them what those duties are, why they have been placed on them and what, in detail, they are expected to do about them. In


addition, there will be a locally available advice and support network, where people can talk to people who know the high street in question and who know the circumstances of the employer. All these provide the right combination and will encourage the right kind of attitude across the nation to ensure that the legislation works well in practice.
I therefore hope that the House will reject the new clauses and associated amendments.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The more I listened to the debate, including the Minister's speech, the more convinced I became that the rights of disabled people will be well served by the decision of the House to endorse new clause 1. It was moved from the Opposition Benches, but it became clear during the ensuing debate that the divide was not on cross-party lines. We heard the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), whose views we deeply respect, say that rights without means to sustain them are unenforceable. Nothing that the Minister and a handful of his hon. Friends have said has altered my view about the realism of the approach of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
The Minister has said otherwise. He has asked the House to ignore the American experience, to ignore what has taken place in Canada, Australia and New Zealand and to ignore the impact of the Equal Opportunities Commission on gender and race discrimination. Instead, he has asked us to embrace an advisory council that is still ill-defined and still promoted by a Government who are appallingly lethargic in advancing the rights of disabled people and their carers. Given the Government's record of talking out Bill after Bill which would have delivered genuine civil rights, the Government are on trial and I do not believe that they were convincing to a national audience.
We have heard some interesting speeches. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who makes such excellent contributions on these issues, seemed to be looking forward to a time when we have genuine subsidiarity—which I think that the Father of the House would endorse—in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere. Contrary to the Government's claim that they are handing power to people, the Minister struggled and struggled again in resisting the new clause. He failed hopelessly in his efforts to persuade 6.5 million disabled people, 7 million carers and those who are determined to embrace civil rights that their rights would be recognised.
It would be churlish not to admit that there was some support for the Minister's view. It did not come from organisations of disabled people or for disabled people. It did not come from the two commissions which exist to ensure that there are equal opportunities and no discrimination. It did not come from the Confederation of British Industry or from the Employers Forum on Disability. It did not come from the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the consultation document which was hastily published and submitted to the British people during a recess last year. There was no support from those organisations and people for the Minister's views.
There was support from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber during my contribution to the debate, I do not understand how he can comment on it.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman was attempting to intervene. It is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to allow another hon. Member to intervene.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have an efficient colleague in my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who took the trouble to write down even that which was uttered by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
What was the hon. Member for Stockton, South saying? The overwhelming body of opinion which advised the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and which advises the House, took the view that there was a case for a commission. The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition were offering no more than a quango. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that a quango is indeed on offer in the Division Lobby today, but it comes from Ministers on the Government Front Bench, not from my hon. Friends or from Members of other parties, to whom I pay tribute.
Right hon. and hon. Members have travelled from all parts of the United Kingdom tonight to take part in a vital vote, and I welcome their presence. They are not here to support a quango. They say that, in the light of our experience and on the basis of everything that we have talked about today—education, vital though it is, transport, jobs and human rights—the Government have failed miserably in their attempts to reject the case for a commission.
It is true that the Minister said tonight, as he did this morning on BBC Breakfast News when he spoke from his ivory studio, as I sat elsewhere, recognising the rights that some of us will introduce in a few months' time—or no more than a few years' time—that we would not have a commission, as we rightly have for race and gender, but a little advisory body. He suddenly decided, almost as a flash of inspiration, when questioned on television, that the citizens advice bureaux would have a network of opportunity, which had not been mentioned hitherto in any of our discussions. That is an interesting development.
The Minister did not say that on Second Reading. He did not say it during the weeks of Standing Committee sittings. Not until this morning, and confirmed tonight, did he announce that he intended to depend so firmly on the activities of that admirable organisation, the CAB. I shall tell the House why he did not say it—

Mr. Hague: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to finish.
Far from suggesting that our new clause is unworkable, the Minister knows that to make further demands on the CAB is unworkable, not least because of the staff reductions that have taken place from one constituency to another as a result of Government policy.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman and I, and our colleagues in Committee, discussed the Bill for five weeks earlier this year. In Committee, I set out my proposals and how they related to the CAB, and I explained the discussions in which the Government are currently engaged with them. Does the hon. Gentleman have no recollection of that at all? It was clearly set out in Committee.

Mr. Clarke: I have a full recollection of the ideas that the Minister floated as to the "options"—as he called them—that were before the Committee. Not only do I have a vivid recollection of the fact that there was no agreement, but I challenged the Minister—I will give way to him even in the closing minutes of our debate—to say whether the CAB agreed at any time to accept that responsibility. Of course they have not, because of the reductions in resources and manpower.
In a letter of 27 March, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said to my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington:
As you know, NACAB strongly supports the call from many organisations for a Disability Commission to ensure enforcement of disabled people's rights. Without a body along the lines of the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission, disabled people will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce their new (albeit limited number of) rights.
That does not sound to me like an organisation determined to co-operate with the new ideas that the Minister has produced.
I end by referring, not to hon. Members' important views—if they will forgive me—but to two recent opinions that have been expressed to me as I have travelled around the country, in support of the commission and of civil rights. A woman in Leicester told me last Friday, while sitting in a wheelchair, that her dream was to travel to London—something that she had never achieved and will not achieve because of the limited transport provisions in the Bill. A man from Birmingham told me that he had gone to see a film, as all of us are entitled to do, and was told at the door, "We have three wheelchairs here already." He replied, "I am not a wheelchair—I am a person."
On behalf of people like that—6.5 million of our fellow citizens—I plead with the House to endorse our new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 299.

Division No. 117]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin-Walker, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret



Beith, Rt Hon A J


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bell, stuart


Armstrong, Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bennett, Andrew F


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Graham, Thomas


Betts, Clive
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D N
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hendron, Dr Joe


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chidgey, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hodge, Margaret


Church, Judith
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hume, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dafis, Cynog
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davidson, Ian
Janner, Greville


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dobson, Frank
Jowell, Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Eastham, Ken
Khabra, Piara S


Enright, Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Fatchett, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Livingstone, Ken


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fisher, Mark
Llwyd, Elfyn


Flynn, Paul
Loyden, Eddie


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCartney, Ian


Foulkes, George
McCrea, The Reverend William


Fraser, John
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McGrady, Eddie


Galloway, George
McKelvey, William


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Garrett, John
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
McMaster, Gordon


Gerrard, Neil
McNamara, Kevin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
MacShane, Denis


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Godsiff, Roger
Madden, Max






Maddock, Diana
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mahon, Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Mallon, Seamus
Ruddock, Joan


Mandelson, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Simpson, Alan


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Alan
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morley, Elliot
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mowlam, Marjorie
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Matthew(Truro)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Trimble, David


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Pearson, Ian
Tyler, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Pike, Peter L
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pope, Greg
Wallace, James


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walley, Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Watson, Mike


Primaroto, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Reid, Dr John
Winnick, David


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Worthington, Tony


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wray, Jimmy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Joe Benton and


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. George Mudie.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bates, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Ancram, Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bowden, Sir Andrew



Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Sir Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John






Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Sir Keith


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spring, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant, Piers
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steve
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trend, Michael


Pickles Eric
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Renton, RtHonTim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Rifkind,Rt Hon Malcolm
Ward, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John



Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whittingdale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Willetts, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wilshire, David


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

RAF Bentwaters

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Jamie Cann: Before opening this debate, I would like to make a brief statement. I understand that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) criticised me on a point of order this afternoon for not formally notifying the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that I had arranged an Adjournment debate on a place within his constituency.
If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had done me the courtesy of notifying me of his intention, I would have been present in the Chamber to explain and apologise. He did not, so I must apologise now. I was not aware of that convention, and I would not have breached it had I known. I accept your strictures on the matter, Madam Speaker, and I apologise unreservedly to you.
The root of the matter is the question of the future of RAF Bentwaters. Its history—for those Members who are interested—is that, until 1993, there were up to 13,000 US service men based at Bentwaters. Their departure in 1993 had a significant economic impact across the whole of east Suffolk, including my constituency of Ipswich. All Suffolk Members should be concerned—I certainly am—about its future use.

Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cann: No, I will not.
The assets involved in Bentwaters include 1,000 acres of land, 77 homes, 41 flats, 1,000 apartments and 2 million sq ft of offices, industrial space and storage. It is a major asset for the future of east Suffolk and Ipswich, and it must be used properly.
One can imagine the concern that many of us felt when the decision was announced on 8 February that the Government proposed to sell the site—a valuable asset which could create hundreds of jobs—to an organisation known as the Maharishi Yoga Foundation.
The stated aim of the organisation is to achieve a 4,000-place university of natural law which would be accredited to proper universities and which would produce degree courses, each of which would involve twice-daily, 20-minute sessions of transcendental meditation which—for those not in the know—is bouncing up and down on one's backside while shouting out mantras for the security and well-being of the rest of us. The reaction of many people in my constituency was that they were—rightly, in my view—against the proposal.
First, it is unrealistic, as the projected university will not achieve accreditation. The Foundation proposes to make the dead father of the Maharishi himself the chancellor of the university in perpetuity, which gives many of us little faith in the future of the enterprise.
We should look at what the organisation has achieved previously. Mentmore Towers—a huge mansion—was sold to the Foundation in 1978, and there are only about 40 people in occupation of all of those rooms. There will be no economic gain to my constituency—or to the constituency of the grinning Secretary of State for the Environment—if the proposal goes ahead.
Secondly, Suffolk is one of the few counties in the country which has no university of its own. Many of us in Ipswich are working hard to try to achieve a university for Suffolk based on the existing Suffolk college in Ipswich, and anything misnaming itself a university within Suffolk will only cut against that legitimate aim.

Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cann: No, the hon. Gentleman will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Suffolk Member."] Suffolk Members turn up when Suffolk Members choose. They usually do so only to cause trouble, and never to support Suffolk.
I saw the junior Minister responsible, Lord Henley, to discuss the matter recently. I was assured that the price offered by the foundation was the best offered, and I accepted that. He further assured me that the Maharishi Yoga Foundation is—God knows how—a registered charity, and that its business plan fits the planning brief for the area. Therefore, he had no choice but to go ahead.
Since then, because of the publicity, I have received a deluge of letters from people all over the country—London, Birmingham, Yorkshire, the west midlands, Wales, Canada, the United States of America and Australia—telling me about what has happened when people have joined that organisation.
The gist of the letters is that young recruits are drawn into the cult—that is what it is—and are charged the earth, even for an introduction, never mind for taking the courses. They are promised peace and enlightenment through transcendental meditation, which involves chanting a mantra, bouncing up and down and pretending to fly, and jumping on to mattresses in the lotus position. They are told that, if they achieve the £3,000 course, which comes later, they will be able to fly properly, although they must never show anyone else that they can do so, and to go through walls—even thick ones, I am told—or, more importantly, they are told.
Some people may say that that is fair enough, and that it is a scam, but that is all. It is not all. The maharishi now controls a £2 billion empire from headquarters in Switzerland, with places in America and Skelmersdale and the one projected in Suffolk. Courses are sold at colossal cost to people who are taken in.
The cult pretends to provide medicines. Two members of the organisation—I was going to say the tendency—were struck off by the General Medical Council for selling medicines made of faecal matter to help people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. They persuaded people to come off AZT, which is the medicine best known for helping people with AIDS. A long list of people have presented themselves to various organisations. After the organisation has dealt with people, they have to attend self-help groups because of mental damage, depression and epilepsy.
I am aware that some Conservative Members will not accept my word, so, with your permission, Madam Speaker, I will quote briefly from six of the letters that I have received, which I have offered to the Ministry of Defence.
This letter is from several people—one has a BA and another a PhD—who write:
We know of one person in particular who, after practising TM"—

transcendental meditation—
and teaching the subject for many years would have periods of catatonic states where she was unable to work or function properly for days at a time. Another boy suffered epilepsy after practising TM for several years and believes it to be the cause. Another branch of TM is the prescription and selling of certain 'medication', claiming to be Indian Ayurvedic medicine. Two English Doctors who were prescribing this medicine have now been struck off the medical register for attempting to cure people of diseases such as Aids with medicines which when examined in a laboratory were found to contain faecal matter.
Another letter reads:
My own objections are based on the knowledge we have gained from those who have had first hand experience of the movement and its founder. A few years ago we met someone who was once one of the right-hand men of the Maharishi. He is now writing a book …
He has said that he saw how crooked and irreligious this so called 'holy man' actually is. He extorts money and takes the virginity of young female disciples; the family suffered loss of all their money and his wife was actually forced to have sex with the 'guru' under the pretence that it might be good for her spirituality. She became a manic depressive after using and teaching all the techniques of TM for some years. Finally desperate and ruined they left TM after realising that his wife had lost the will to live and that he had in addition to all this never found the enlightenment that he had been seeking.
Another friend of ours who is an ex-Barrister and well educated from a wealthy and established background was literally reduced to a barking, growling and totally degraded wreck. We saw this with our own eyes and were extremely shocked having had no previous preconceptions about this technique.
[Interruption.] I notice that the committed Christian on the Government Front Bench laughs about that technique.
Another letter is from a psychiatrist, who says:
I am deeply suspicious of the motives of this group as I have had several patients who have been troubled with depression and in some cases epilepsy"—
letter after letter claims that epilepsy has been caused—
subsequent to long-term practice of this 'meditation'.
The patients have had a feeling of being brain-washed by the group, which in some cases has taken years to shake off, despite the fact that the group purport to being an innocuous form of relaxation.
Another letter states:
I have known a number of people, several of them close friends, who, having taken TM courses over a period of time, developed mental and physical problems, some of a subtle nature, and others … resembling symptoms of epilepsy. After an initial sense of wellbeing, depression, confusion and an inability to deal with day to day living were commonly experienced.
A substantial fee is charged for TM courses, especially for so-called 'advanced' courses and 'flying techniques' (which you may have seen demonstrated on … broadcasts some years ago). Through charging high fees TM has become an extremely wealthy organisation, while gradually destroying the wellbeing of its customers.
A psychiatric report published in 1976, entitled "Psychiatric Problems Precipitated by Transcendental Meditation", said:
The first 'meditation casualty' I encountered was a 34-yr.-old woman who made a serious suicidal attempt following a weekend training course in Transcendental Meditation. Since then I have come across several people who allege that such meditation exacerbated their depressive affect. Similarly, several agitated, restive individuals have reported that the basic procedure of repeating a mantra"—
which is often a word like "teapot" in Indian—
tended to heighten their ongoing tension and restlessness.


My final letter is from the mayor of Rantoul in Illinois, where the outfit tried to buy an ex-base. It says:
This letter is in response to your request for information about the Maharishi organisation that we dealt with in Rantoul in 1992. It was a most frustrating experience and I am happy that we no longer are involved. Representatives of the Maharishi International University"—
which is what they call it over there—
of Fairfield, Iowa, visited us and represented themselves as a reputable university. We gave them the benefit of the doubt for quite a while and shared with them our plans for re-use of Chanute Air Force Base which involves a diverse plan for some 2,500 acres of land.
We did find that MIU made many claims that they could not substantiate. They indicated that US News and World Report magazine had rated MIU among the top universities in the United States. A check with US News revealed this not to be true.
Hon. Members who represent Suffolk will recognise the kind of thing that they are being told by that organisation.
The letter went on:
When the time came for anyone to make application to obtain any of the CAFB properties, MIU ignored completely any of Rantoul's plans for redevelopment, and contrary to any of their discussions with us, they applied for the entire base property.
We found them not to be what they professed at all. They are interested in obtaining lots of property at no cost and excluding anyone not associated with the mediators.
Since receiving those letters, I have written to the Secretary of State for Defence, and sent a copy to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The letter was dated 7 March but, to date, I have not had the courtesy of a reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cann: No. The right hon. Gentleman would not let me in on a previous occasion.

Mr. Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that he has not had the courtesy of a reply. He wrote to me but did not include the letters that he claimed to include. He has given me no notice of tonight's debate nor informed me of anything else that he has done. Moreover, he has not apologised to me this evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] He has apologised to you, Madam Speaker, but not to me. He has shown discourtesy throughout this whole performance, and he now suggests that I have not replied to his letter.

Madam Speaker: I dealt with that matter on a point of order earlier today.

Mr. Cann: I reiterate that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not replied to my letter. I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence has not replied, because he has a Minister here to respond in person, which I appreciate.
This Adjournment debate is an attempt to bring something out into the open which has been dealt with consistently behind closed doors in the Ministry of Defence. What we are dealing with is not what we initially thought it was—just a matter of economic regeneration in my area of the country. It is not only a matter of the future use of a base. We are talking about Her Majesty's Government, wide-eyed and open, selling the base to a cult which, as we all know, like all other cults, is inherently unstable.
If anybody had said that Waco meant wacko before it happened, they would have been accused of trying to scare everybody. If anybody had talked about Jim Jones and what went on in Guyana, where 400 people poisoned themselves with cyanide at the behest of the head of that cult, they would have been accused of exaggerating. Indeed, they would have said the same of what happened recently in Switzerland.
Are we sincerely—this must surely go across the political divide—considering putting this property in the hands of a cult which will attempt to pull in 4,000 young people? If it is possible that the cult will pull in youngsters to be indoctrinated at Bentwaters, as has happened in the rest of the world, where the cult has pulled in 4,000 youngsters who did not quite make it to a proper university, who were desperate and whose parents could afford to pay, I cannot believe that the Government would dream of allowing that sale.
I know that the Government cannot possibly say no to it tonight, but I hope that they can see their way clear, for goodness' sake, to reviewing the matter before the final signature goes on the contract.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for allowing me one minute to speak in this debate.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), and I welcome the fact that he has apologised to you, Madam Speaker. I noticed, however, that he did not feel able to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in whose constituency affairs the hon. Gentleman has been meddling for some time.
The hon. Member for Ipswich did not say whether this debate was just a publicity stunt, although that is the most charitable interpretation that we may put on his actions. The hon. Gentleman did not say why he did not advise my right hon. Friend of his visit to the constituency of Suffolk, Coastal, and I regret that he was so ill informed about the conventions of this House, after almost three years, that he waited until after he had been rebuked by you, Madam Speaker, before apologising to the House. Neither his predecessor, Michael Irvine, nor his predecessor's predecessor, Ken Weetch, who was a respected Member of this House, would have displayed such ignorance and discourtesy.
I wonder whether the real agenda is the Labour party's desire in Ipswich to dump Ipswich airport on to Bentwaters, against the wishes either of the local community or of the users of Ipswich airport. My right hon. Friend, to whom the arrival of the Maharishi has not been exactly welcome, is now doing his best to reconcile the local neighbourhood to the change of ownership of Bentwaters, and to ensure that any harm which may result can at least be minimised. I deplore the heavy-handed intrusion of the hon. Member for Ipswich, which can only inflame the local situation.
Such intrusion has obviously been undertaken for purely political purposes, regardless of the damage to the lives of the constituents of my right hon. Friend. The presence of three Labour Front Benchers in the House, which is extremely unusual for an Adjournment debate, shows that they approve of and connive at the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Ipswich, whose


manoeuvring will be remembered in this House and in Suffolk for some time to come. This is the face of the modern Labour party, which clearly has the full backing of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I start by saying that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) has made a thoroughly reprehensible, naive and foolish speech, showing a degree of malevolence and ignorance almost unparalleled in the time that I have had the honour of being a Minister? Despite the fact that he has offered you, Madam Speaker, an apology, his behaviour tonight is all the more reprehensible, because he has failed to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the State for the Environment, in whose constituency affairs he is clearly meddling.

Mr. Cann: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
RAF Bentwaters is in the heart of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He has been working on the matters for nearly two years. He is the chairman of the consultative committee of the local authorities and parish councils concerned with planning the future of RAF Bentwaters.
He has been in constant touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend has been concerned with both the principles and details of this difficult case. By local meetings and postal surveys, he has represented with great diligence and care the views of his constituents.
Neither the borough of Ipswich nor either of its two Members of Parliament have been consulted—and quite properly not. The planning authority for the sale of Bentwaters is the Suffolk county council. Indeed, it was only when the Natural Law Foundation emerged as the lead bidder that the hon. Member for Ipswich decided to take an interest in his neighbour's business. I understand that he has a well-known reputation for doing that, and for trying to stir up trouble through the press.
No one could suggest that my right hon. Friend would be a pushover for oriental religion! There cannot be many in the House who could be better equipped to argue forcibly with the proponents of transcendental meditation. It is not for me to judge the hon. Member for Ipswich on such matters, but, between the two of them, I know where I would put my money.
Because of the bad faith of the hon. Member, it is not right for the Ministry of Defence to take sides, but it is right for me to reveal to the House that my right hon. Friend is deeply opposed to the views of the Natural Law Foundation. He has made that clear to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers involved. He has had long and detailed discussions about the legal position, but once it became clear that the foundation was the likely purchaser, my right hon. Friend quite rightly sought to deal with it in the best interests of his constituents.
My right hon. Friend has met its leaders, and has secured the agreement to provide community facilities, the use of sporting facilities, and the ecumenical use of a Church building. He has maintained his own view with integrity, but, above all, he has sought to do all that is possible to secure good neighbourly relations. That is the proper activity of a highly diligent and active Member of Parliament.
Into that picture has come the hon. Member for Ipswich, who will not have to live with the people involved, who can walk away, having caused as much ill feeling as possible, and who has no responsibility for the future of RAF Bentwaters and its people. That is why I am surprised at this Adjournment debate, of which my right hon. Friend received no notice until he got his Whip and read it last week.
The primary role of the MOD is, of course, to defend the realm. To allow us to do so, our armed forces must have sufficient land to train upon, and be adequately housed—as must the forces of our allies stationed on our soil.
A major objective of my Ministry has always been to ensure that, in restructuring the services and planning the current drawdown from overseas, we do not miss any opportunity to reduce the size of the defence estate, and thereby carry out our obligation to the taxpayer to ensure the best value for money.
The disposal of the United States Air Force base at Bentwaters, Suffolk, forms part of that programme, but it is an element that has generated considerable public interest, particularly as it is the first large American base to be placed on the open market following the recent rundown of the USAF in this country.
The base itself comprises more than 1,000 acres of land and just under 2 million sq ft of building space. It is situated in a rural area, and much of it is located in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The announcement of the USAF withdrawal was made in August 1992 and the closure date set for September 1993.
In the usual way, the most careful consideration was given to any other defence use which may have been appropriate for Bentwaters. We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Ipswich while those discussions were going on. No such alternative use was found for the site, and the whole station was therefore handed to the defence land agent for disposal.
The base, and its sister base at Woodbridge, were home to about 13,500 service men and women, and civilian employees and their families. It was inevitable, therefore, that the closure would have a significant impact on the local economy. That, of course, could not affect our decision on closure, but it was a factor that was very much to the fore.
A working group was established as soon as the United States Air Force withdrawal was announced, and my Department liaised extensively.
In September 1993, an examination in public was held to consider changes to the Suffolk county council's structure plan. That was used as a public forum for the ideas of the working group. A revised draft planning brief was broadly agreed in June 1994. That was formally incorporated within the local plan and the county structure plan in September 1994.
From that explanation, it will be obvious that we sought to obtain the broadest measure of agreement concerning the issues in planning terms which could be considered for the site on leaving the Government's ownership. Early interest in the domestic site was shown by Suffolk college, based in Ipswich, and some preliminary discussions took place. However, Suffolk college did not pursue its interest further.
Other expressions of interest were received, and the marketing process was concluded, after critical examination, by the announcement on 8 February 1995 that the offer for the purchase of the whole of the former base made by the Maharishi Foundation had been accepted. The offer made by the Maharishi Foundation, which is a registered educational charity, was the best received and fully conforms with the planning brief agreed during the consultation process.
The foundation has said that it intends to establish a university based on the domestic site, using as many of the existing buildings as possible. In addition, I understand that the foundation intends to set up a related science and business park using other parts of the base.
It is also worthy of note that the foundation has consulted widely since the announcement that its bid had been accepted. It has had detailed discussions with Suffolk Coastal district council, and public meetings have been held to consult local communities around Bentwaters. The local residents in the privately owned houses adjoining the base have been consulted, and the foundation has said that community facilities will be made available on the former domestic site.
There has been some suggestion that my Department should have accepted one of the other bids that was made, and that the Maharishi Foundation is in some way an

unsuitable purchaser. On the first issue, I believe that the procedures that are followed allow all the prospective purchasers a fair and equal opportunity.
I can confirm that the foundation's offer was the best deal for the taxpayer. I also believe that the planned uses have the potential to be of significant benefit to the local community, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Nor can I find any basis for the opinion that the foundation is an undesirable organisation. It is a registered educational charity, which has operated in this country and elsewhere for about twenty years and is widely known. There is certainly no reason for rejecting its bid.
As I have said, we received several other offers for the purchase of the site, and some of the prospective purchasers have naturally lobbied hard in support of their bids. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ipswich will understand, however, that I cannot discuss those commercial details, as they are a matter of confidence.
In conclusion, I can confirm that the offer accepted from the foundation is a good deal for the taxpayer, and the normal criteria in assessing proposals made for the purchase of redundant defence property have been followed in full. I therefore remain of the view that the proposed disposal to the Maharishi Foundation should proceed.
I should not like to end without placing again on record my contempt for the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Ipswich, and my hope that the House will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has done all in his power to ensure the very best terms and conditions for his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.